• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Quit Smoking or Quit Your Job, U.S. Company Says

Status
Not open for further replies.

Macam

Banned
Source: http://today.reuters.com/news/newsA...26154678_RTRIDST_0_HEALTH-LIFE-SMOKING-DC.XML

CHICAGO (Reuters) - The owner of a Michigan company who forced his employees to either quit smoking or quit their jobs said on Wednesday he also wants to tell fat workers to lose weight or else.

A ban on tobacco use -- whether at home or at the workplace -- led four employees to quit their jobs last week at Okemos, Michigan-based Weyco Inc., which handles insurance claims.

The workers refused to take a mandatory urine test demanded of Weyco's 200 employees by founder and sole owner Howard Weyers, a demand that he said was perfectly legal.

"If you don't want to take the test, you can leave," Weyers told Reuters. "I'm not controlling their lives; they have a choice whether they want to work here."

Next on the firing line: overweight workers.

"We have to work on eating habits and getting people to exercise. But if you're obese, you're (legally) protected," Weyers said.

He has brought in an eating disorder therapist to speak to workers, provided eating coaches, created a point system for employees to earn health-related $100 bonuses and plans to offer $45 vouchers for health club memberships.

The 71-year-old Weyers, who said he has never smoked and pronounced himself in good shape thanks to daily runs, said employees' health as well as saving money on the company's own insurance claims led him to first bar smokers from being hired in 2003.

Last year, he banned smoking during office hours, then demanded smokers pay a monthly $50 "assessment," and finally instituted mandatory testing.

Twenty workers quit the habit.

Weyers tells clients to quit whining about health care costs and to "set some expectations; demand some things."
Job placement specialist John Challenger said Weyco's moves could set a precedent for larger companies -- if it survives potential legal challenges.

"Certainly it raises an interesting boundary issue: rising health care costs and society's aversion to smoking versus privacy and freedom rights of an individual," Challenger said.

So far no legal challenges have been made to Weyco's policies.
 
Meh, if I were owner I would do the same thing however, I would allow smokers to smoke only in designated areas. As for the fat people...FIRED!
 

ChrisReid

Member
iceDragon7 said:
Meh, if I were owner I would do the same thing however, I would allow smokers to smoke only in designated areas.

Yeah, some small dark cage outside, about fifteen minutes from the regular building, so they have some time to walk off the smell before they get back to the office.
 

mrklaw

MrArseFace
ChrisReid said:
Yeah, some small dark cage outside, about fifteen minutes from the regular building, so they have some time to walk off the smell before they get back to the office.

And make them work an hour longer each day to make up for their fag-breaks.
 

belgurdo

Banned
Bet money this dude dies in a year having a heart attack on one of his "daily runs," and his employees just have a good laugh and return to smoking and gorging
 

Pimpwerx

Member
Smoking is what keeps some people working. I think this guy is fucking nuts. You can't dictate how people lead their personal lives. There's gotta be a discrimination suit about to be delivered to this tard's doorstep. PEACE.
 

Nerevar

they call me "Man Gravy".
I wonder if he's passing the savings he gets to his employees from his health policy? I highly doubt it, in which case he's just another rich piece of shit executive who wants to earn an extra buck anyway he can.
 
Pimpwerx, I think it's actually great than an employer sees a problem and is being proactive about it.

It saves him money and improves the health of his employees, therefore less money in insurance costs.

This isn't the first I've heard of something like this, Oddworld Inhabitants (if your a gamer, you know who they are) has something really similar. It's just a boss concerend about his employees. No one is forcing them to work there, they can leave if they like.

BUT... charging people to be smokers? I don't think that's fair... or legal. And it is an invasion of privacy. The company has no right to monitor anything you do once you leave their grounds. What you do on your property is your own business. I could see if it was illegal drug use, but it's not. It's tobacco use, which (as far as I knew) was completely legal.

It's one thing to ban it at the office, another to invade one's privacy at home.

I see some invasion of privacy lawsuits coming from this.
 

Zilch

Banned
Pimpwerx said:
Smoking is what keeps some people working. I think this guy is fucking nuts. You can't dictate how people lead their personal lives. There's gotta be a discrimination suit about to be delivered to this tard's doorstep. PEACE.

People who sue because they can't smoke somewhere should be shipped to another country.
 

Agent Icebeezy

Welcome beautful toddler, Madison Elizabeth, to the horde!
rs7k said:
You're officially fucking retarded if you think the boss' actions are a good thing.


The end will be better. I work in a place where they are allowed to smoke at will. That shit sucks. I support this 110%
 

NLB2

Banned
Pimpwerx said:
Smoking is what keeps some people working. I think this guy is fucking nuts. You can't dictate how people lead their personal lives.
They can quit if they want to. He's not telling them how to lead there lives.
 

borghe

Loves the Greater Toronto Area
rs7k said:
You're officially fucking retarded if you think the boss' actions are a good thing.
and conversely you are retarded if you see this as a bad thing..

the workers will adjust.. if they can't adjust, they will either quit or be fired and then work somewhere else they can smoke..

the result is a much healthier staff of employees and lower costs.. win/win it seems to me... the only people complaining are the people who don't want to quit smoking and they can just go somewhere else.

as for this being an invasion of privacy, if he were doing this completely without merit or precident I would agree.. but he is doing it because the insurance company is doing it. insurance companies for decades have had non-smoker policies... this is just the first time I Think a company has ever tried to take advantage of them.

darscot said:
No one sees this as a freedom issue?

no, because he is not stopping them from smoking in their personal lives.. they can smoke as much as they want, they just have to quit first. they have a choice here, hence it isn't a freedom issue.
 

Tazznum1

Member
Next:

Bans people from having premarital sex. (STDs)
Bans people that want to get pregnant. (Takes a big hit on medical and females are out 3 months)
Bans people engaging in homosexual activity. (STDs)
Bans people from living in the city. (Takes years off you)
Bans people from living in the country. (might take you a bit to get to a "real" doctor and it will cost more for medical)
Bans people that do not use hybrid cars. (pollution kills)
Bans people that do not go to the dentist 2x a year. (Preventative people!!! GET WITH IT!)




Ridiculous.
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
I can understand banning someone from smoking at work. I mean, I HATE when one of my coworkers takes a smoke brak and leaves me to pick up their slack. But if they are home? screw that they can do what the want.. smoking isnt illegal.

Hell, if I want to go home, fill a bathtub with KY Jelly and pleasure myself for hours without any friction, he cant do anything about it.. AND he would have to pay for my seeing eye dog.
 

Meier

Member
darscot said:
No one sees this as a freedom issue?

Nope, more power to this guy. If you wan't to continue smoking, then you can stop working at his company. If you want to keep working at his company, then stop smoking. He's the boss after all.
 

DarthWoo

I'm glad Grandpa porked a Chinese Muslim
Something that sickened me from my days of food service employment back in high school was smoking coworkers. Ok, so just because they're bloody addicted to their little phallic representations, they get an extra few minutes of paid break every hour or so to go outside and smoke, whereas the only break those of us who didn't smoke got was the regular off-the-clock one?
 

Gregory

Banned
boxer.jpg
 

Willco

Hollywood Square
Meier said:
Nope, more power to this guy. If you wan't to continue smoking, then you can stop working at his company. If you want to keep working at his company, then stop smoking. He's the boss after all.

That's called discrimination, retard.

Smoking is addictive and some people can never quit. It's a horrible habit, I don't condone it, but telling people that they can't smoke a cigaratte in their own homes (which is very much legal) is insane.

You can't dictate what people legally do in the privacy of their own homes or on their own personal time if it's not disrupting the workplace.
 

Minotauro

Finds Purchase on Dog Nutz
I'm absolutely sickened by the contempt people have towards smokers. Everyone has weaknesses and vices. Smokers are just more visible. How about trying to be a little more tolerant you self-righteous pricks?
 

borghe

Loves the Greater Toronto Area
you guys are seriously missing the point...

he is likely not doing this because he hates smoking and thinks you shouldn't smoke. As I already said, this is a type of policy that insurance providers have been providing for years.. Hell, being a non-smoker can get you cheaper home insurance rates, not just life insurance or health insurance.

It is a policy offered up by the company's insurance provider and he is adopting it. It is no different than your homeowner's insurance "requiring" you to not smoke at home or on your property to get the same type of coverage. It is your choice there and it is your choice here.

As for all of your retarded drinking/sex/whatever comparisons, if you guys truly believe that any of those (even sex?) as many people every year in america as smoking you are crazy.. (like I said, I don't know about sex but I thought AIDS and other numbers have come down in the states in recent years).

and even taking sex into account, you are not guaranteed to become ill from having sex. you are guaranteed to end up with health problems from smoking.

Willco said:
That's called discrimination, retard.

Smoking is addictive and some people can never quit. It's a horrible habit, I don't condone it, but telling people that they can't smoke a cigaratte in their own homes (which is very much legal) is insane.

You can't dictate what people legally do in the privacy of their own homes or on their own personal time if it's not disrupting the workplace.

Lol... it is not discrimination as defined in the workplace.. if that were the case my work discriminates against lazy people (and I wish they would discriminate against stupid people also).

Everybody can quit smoking so don't give me that shit. There isn't a phyiscal addiction out there that can't be beat so stop saying "Some people can't quit." they choose not to, plain and simple.

As for dictating what people do in their homes, he isn't.. he is not stopping them from smoking in their homes.. tyhey can smoke however much they want, as long as they find a new job first.

Minotauro said:
I'm absolutely sickened by the contempt people have towards smokers. Everyone has weaknesses and vices. Smokers are just more visible. How about trying to be a little more tolerant you self-righteous pricks?

You mistake intolerance for contempt. I have no contempt towards smokers.. none whatsoever. What I do have intolerance for is smokers affecting my life and basically forcing me to either curb going to certain places or dealing with secondhand smoke. Someone else drinking does not physically and directly affect me.. Someone else snorting coke does not physically and directly affect me... Someone smoking physically and directly affects me, and guess what.. they don't care. so how are we supposed to have tolerance for them when they don't have any form of respect for us..?

but no, I don't have contempt for them. they certainly have a right to do whatever they want.
 

marko

Member
I have no problem with setting different employee rates for smoker and non smokers, or if you like, providing a non smoker insurance discount to employees that don't smoke, but the whole idea of not employing smokers (or fat people) is a bit much
 

Willco

Hollywood Square
borghe said:
you guys are seriously missing the point...

he is likely not doing this because he hates smoking and thinks you shouldn't smoke. As I already said, this is a type of policy that insurance providers have been providing for years.. Hell, being a non-smoker can get you cheaper home insurance rates, not just life insurance or health insurance.

What the fuck are you talking about. This is a place of business, not some insurance policy people are getting.

It is a policy offered up by the company's insurance provider and he is adopting it. It is no different than your homeowner's insurance "requiring" you to not smoke at home or on your property to get the same type of coverage. It is your choice there and it is your choice here.

Accept one place is your home and you can still get insurance and smoke, albeit at a higher rate. Stop being stupid.

As for all of your retarded drinking/sex/whatever comparisons, if you guys truly believe that any of those (even sex?) as many people every year in america as smoking you are crazy.. (like I said, I don't know about sex but I thought AIDS and other numbers have come down in the states in recent years).

Body count doesn't matter and is pretty much irrelevant. And you're right, you can't compare, because deaths by smoking are relatively easy to keep track of, as it's all cancer or lung-related. Whereas deaths due to alcohol can be all over the place, especially if you include motorvehicle accidents or domestic abuse. It's hard to put a rough figure on deaths due to alcohol.

It doesn't even matter. All these practices are legal and all offer various risks.
 

darscot

Member
I know I will never piss in a cup. Not because I have anything to hide just because it's none of you fucking business. This is a total attack against freedom I dont think many of you even know what the word means.
 

Willco

Hollywood Square
lol... it is not discrimination as defined in the workplace.. if that were the case my work discriminates against lazy people (and I wish they would discriminate against stupid people also).

You really are an idiot. It is discrimination. And he definitely won't win the obesity battle, since there are plenty of discrimination laws about obese people. When someone does something legal in their own time, and it does not disrupt the workplace, this is very much an act of discrimination. People who do not perform to company standards can be canned because there's a level of performance to be attained at any workplace.

I fail to see why someone who smokes can maintain an adequate level of performance unless this company is hiring marathon runners.


Everybody can quit smoking so don't give me that shit. There isn't a phyiscal addiction out there that can't be beat so stop saying "Some people can't quit." they choose not to, plain and simple.

Some people are incapable, whether you want to believe it or not. Especially elderly people who started smoking before cigarettes had filters. It's not just a case of giving them a box of Nicoderm and trying hard. It really can break them.

As for dictating what people do in their homes, he isn't.. he is not stopping them from smoking in their homes.. tyhey can smoke however much they want, as long as they find a new job first.

Wow, you're so right!

... and a complete idiot.

darscot said:
I know I will never piss in a cup. Not because I have anything to hide just because it's none of you fucking business. This is a total attack against freedom I dont think many of you even know what the word means.

The first time I've ever agreed with darscot.
 

Tazznum1

Member
Minotauro said:
I'm absolutely sickened by the contempt people have towards smokers. Everyone has weaknesses and vices. Smokers are just more visible. How about trying to be a little more tolerant you self-righteous pricks?


Says the man with the Hitler avatar!!! :lol
 
I can't believe some of you folks actually condone his actions. So you don't mind having dogma shoved down your throat as long as you agree with, huh?

Guess what? I hate smokers and I think a lot of people could stand to loose a few pounds (myself included) but no one should take away their right to earn a living, let alone to live the life they want.

It's called tolerance people. Some folks need to get fucking clues.
 

Willco

Hollywood Square
Ninja Scooter said:
this probably is discrimination, but i don't care because smokers suck ass.

I don't like smokers, especially as an asthmatic, but not all smokers are inherently evil and they don't deserved to be forced out of job security because of a legal habit.

I think half of you are just young and ignorant, and don't see what this guy is doing because he's focusing on fat people and smokers, two sets of people that many detest. I'm sure if he's succesful, it won't stop him from people who drink alcohol or have medical illnesses that cause an employee to miss a day or two more of work than it would for an average employee.

It's just wrong.
 

Minotauro

Finds Purchase on Dog Nutz
borghe said:
You mistake intolerance for contempt. I have no contempt towards smokers.. none whatsoever.

Eh, you're just being pedantic here. Contempt and intolerance are basically interchangable in my original post.

borghe said:
What I do have intolerance for is smokers affecting my life and basically forcing me to either curb going to certain places or dealing with secondhand smoke. Someone else drinking does not physically and directly affect me.. Someone else snorting coke does not physically and directly affect me... Someone smoking physically and directly affects me, and guess what.. they don't care. so how are we supposed to have tolerance for them when they don't have any form of respect for us..?

The dangers of secondhand smoke are incredibly over-exaggerated. The supposed dangers are just a convenient excuse for people who don't like the smell of smoke. If this is your real reason for not wanting to be around smokers, just say it. Don't drag out some tired bullshit about how you're really concerned about your health when it's probably the least dangerous thing for you to be intaking in a restaurant or bar.
 

Willco

Hollywood Square
StoOgE said:
Wilco, listen up because StoOgE is about to make you less stupid.

... k thanks.

Buisnesses (like this one) provide insurance to their employee's. Its called a benefit. The employer PAYS to subsidize the cost of this insurance (so the employee doesnt have to get it on their own, which is REALLY expensive). Now, if this guy can tell an insurance company "None of my employees are allowed to smoke" the price that he pays to said insurance company goes down (just like your individual rate goes down if you dont smoke).

Except nowhere in the article does it say that. All it says is that non-smokers will save the company money on the insurance claims. Claims. Not rates.

Its very likely getting rid of smokers and fat people will result in thousands of dollars saved anually. Not sure how big his company is, but this WILL save his company money. Dont know if that is his motivation or not, but it'll happen.

I don't doubt that it'll save his company millions and I'm sure that's probably the motivation.
 

MIMIC

Banned
As a non-smoker, I disagree with this demand (unless smoking is somehow interfering with the employees' ability to do their jobs...or somehow affecting the workplace).
 

Minotauro

Finds Purchase on Dog Nutz
Tazznum1 said:
Says the man with the Hitler avatar!!! :lol

Heh, "irony" is my middle name.

Actually, I think the Mario hat really offsets Hitler's presence. It's kinda a yin and yang type situation.
 

Gattsu25

Banned
I'm torn on this issue...on one hand...this IS a violation of an employees' privacy in their personal life...if they want to perform legal actions on their free time then let them and retarded shit like this will only lead to employers objecting to more and more legal activities just for the hell of it

on the other hand...smokers are fucking annoying
 
borghe said:
(Nonsensical horseshit)

So let's say you're a gamer. And your boss all the sudden decides that because games are linked to real-life violence, you're not allowed to play games during your own time at home anymore. You have a wife, who is unemployed, and three kids to support, so having to find a new job really wouldn't be a great option at the moment.

You wouldn't have a problem with this?

It's about respecting someone's personal life. Their choices aren't harming other workers, other people in general, nor are they interfering with the person's time on the clock. Why should the boss have any right to interfere with their personal time?
 

lachesis

Member
I am a smoker. I definitey don't smoke around non-smokers. I don't smoke in a bar, nor restaurant. I know it's a bad habbit, and hope I will be able to quit someday. But WTF?! You get fired for smoking?! The old man has lost his mind.

However when people treat me as if I'm a lesser being because I smoke - I can't only help think "fuck you all" -

Some of the people think 2nd hand smoking being "assulted", as if I'm stabbing you with a knife. In that case, why not firing or forbid people who drive SUV or even a car? Carbon Monoxide is bad for health and environment?!

Perhaps some of you, non-smokers think smokers are fucking annoying - but constantly whining non-smokers are even more annoying.

lachesis
 

Tarazet

Member
Tazznum1 said:
Next the boss will put in a device in your car that tells him if you speed. If you do, find another job.

There are, of course, certain jobs where they do exactly this, mostly trucking. There was also a story about a rental company which charged a customer two $75 charges (possibly more) for going over the speed limit.

In related news, San Francisco wants to ban smoking in certain city-owned outdoor public areas, such as parks...
 

Dilbert

Member
Although arguing over this specific example is amusing, there are much larger issues at play which deserve discussion far more. (It's what I get for dating a labor attorney...this kind of stuff comes up over dinner a lot.)

1) Many employees in this country are "at-will" employees, meaning that the employer can fire them for ANY reason which does not violate discrimination laws. When you sign an employment contract, it usually contains a provision that you may be fired at any time, even if they bother to list specific examples of reasons why your employment would be terminated.

2) Protected classes against discrimination are specified in the law, and smokers are not a protected class at this time AFAIK. There is no legal obligation to accommodate smokers' needs in the workplace (mandatory breaks for smoking, etc.), and firing a smoker is not grounds for a discrimination lawsuit.

3) There are plenty of other employers which have <AHEM> "interesting" clauses in their employment contracts. Many employers have personal appearance/presentation standards -- a famous example is the Disney rule against facial hair. If you think the Disney rule is OK, then couldn't you also argue that smelling like smoke would cause a negative reaction in the customer, and therefore be against presentation standards? Another example: Wal-Mart has an morality clause in their contracts which basically says that if you do anything they consider to be immoral in your off-duty time, you will be fired for it. If you think that rule is OK, then you should probably agree with the no-smoking clause since THAT behavior is far more closely tied to negative work performance (more sick days, potentially less productivity at work, etc.) than, say, being promiscuous or whatever it is that pisses Wal-Mart off.

Yeah, this guy is more than likely a crazy old dude who thinks graham crackers and Metamucil will keep you alive until the ripe old age of 150. But I'm not sure that what he's doing is ILLEGAL...which means we ought to be taking a hard look at our laws.
 

Tazznum1

Member
sonarrat said:
There are, of course, certain jobs where they do exactly this, mostly trucking. There was also a story about a rental company which charged a customer two $75 charges (possibly more) for going over the speed limit.

In related news, San Francisco wants to ban smoking in certain city-owned outdoor public areas, such as parks...


I know, but this guy runs an office and has absolutely no reason to know if you speed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom