Smokers Beware

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Rehmwa - all I gave you was the definition of Civil Rights .....of a sex change?

So then it's clear it's not a Civil Rights issue - by definition. It's an employment policy issue only. right or wrong or subjective. It can still be an important issue without crying Civil Rights (WOLF) on it.

Many will choose not to work there now that it's policy. They'll likely be damaged by having a smaller number of applicants for jobs. Conversely, they might attract more people due to the quality of health coverage and working environment. Time will tell.

Sex changes are psychological and cosmetic only {{{not that there's anything wrong with that}}}. But no one has yet changed an X into a Y or vice versa, so genetically, no, it's not voluntary. Different topic though again.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jlmiracle 7]

***If someone whose spouce smoked worked there, they should understand the risk that their spouce is inflicting on them.

So this particular company should be able to tell their employees how to handle their relationships or risk losing their job?  I don't think so.  


Sounds like a cult.  Next they will think its okay to pick your spouse, where you live, what you eat, what your hobbies are, what you drive, etc...
Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

			
		

[jdhill 0]

Quote

o this particular company should be able to tell their employees how to handle their relationships or risk losing their job?

No... they should understand the risk, and be prepared to deal with it should it come up. If they are considering employment with this company, and their spouce smokes, they should fully understand what methods are used for testing, what triggers testing, and what their vunerability is before taking the job.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

If you want the government in your house, in your face, in your bedroom, in your car, that is your privlege in this wonderful country, as is my right to smoke at my house (I don't smoke inside), on my land that I pay for and taxes on.

You are absolutely correct.

What you're forgetting is that your employer absolutely has the right to employ who they see fit.

Just as you have the right to do whatever you want, your employer has the right to choose not to employ you.

It's really quite simple.

Civil liberties is a two-way street.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Prove it - that their wastage is in ADDITION.

I worked there and saw it. It's not rocket science - if you take more breaks a day but start and end at the same time you are at the workstation less than someone who doesn't take breaks. That's just math.

You should know better than most that ad hoc observation is imprecise. You were doing your own job, not watching the smokers, right? How many of them could you sit nearby to?

And their extra breaks doesn't prove that they wasted as much time as everyone else on the other time sinks.

I got Kele as my poster girl. You'll want to say she's the exception, but believing it isn't the same as proving it.

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

If you want the government in your house, in your face, in your bedroom, in your car, that is your privlege in this wonderful country, as is my right to smoke at my house (I don't smoke inside), on my land that I pay for and taxes on.

What if one of these employees gets a ride to work from their spouse that smokes. Their clothes will probably smell of smoke and now its up to the employee to HAVE to prove its not them. What a great country Guilty til proven Innocent.

Judy

Just as I don't want government interference in my private life, I wouldn't want excessive government interference in the details of how I run my business. I think their policy stinks, but so what....it's THEIR policy. Just as individuals have freedoms, so should other private entities....

Lindsey

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[billvon 3,110]

>I got Kele as my poster girl. You'll want to say she's the exception,
>but believing it isn't the same as proving it.

She didn't take smoking breaks; the people at CPS did. Different situation.

[boudy 0]

There is one aspect of the story that is being missed in all this discussion. The company administers heath insurance programs for other companies and is also an agent for insured plans.
http://www.weyco.com/web/

They are all about promoting healthy employee lifestyles in order to reduce costs & enhance productivity. This is not some capricious invasion of privacy, a do-gooder program or a mere cost reduction measure. The company is practicing what it preaches - "demonstrating leadership" according to its president.

http://www.weyco.com/web/forms/serveForm?f=000030&t=pdf
Perhaps some consider this an extreme rule but it certainly should come as no shock to an employee to learn their company is instituting a policy in its own workplace that it promotes to its clients.

[jlmiracle 7]

Quote

Just as you have the right to do whatever you want, your employer has the right to choose not to employ you.

What about affirmative action hires? I've worked for companies that have HAD to hire those less qualified to meet a number. Those employers DIDN'T get to CHOOSE the most qualified person.

So not all employers have the right to pick and choose who they REALLY want.

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[AndyMan 7]

Just so I understand what you're saying, are you suggesting congress pass legislation specifically reducing the rights of corporations, adding smokers to a protected class of people?

Just as a guess, but I suspect most Americans won't support such a bill.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[jdhill 0]

Quote

So not all employers have the right to pick and choose who they REALLY want.

Correct, not all employers get to choose who they want (and there is another active thread discussing the merits of that particular issue)... but in this case the, the employer gets to exclude behaviors (not genetic qualities) that it does not want.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

They are all about promoting healthy employee lifestyles in order to reduce costs & enhance productivity. This is not some capricious invasion of privacy, a do-gooder program or a mere cost reduction measure. The company is practicing what it preaches - "demonstrating leadership" according to its president.

We've had this discussion in the past as it relates to our vice of choice. Quite a few of you have held that employers can choose to dismiss people for activities in their privates lives that has no relevence to their working performance.

This smoking ban seems likely to spread, and likely to lead to other companies adding their own intrusive policies. At which point I wouldn't be surprised to see Congress stepping in. Legislation has already been put through banning health plan discimination against bikers and people like us, though the implementation in the rules process fell far short of the intent.

Because when it comes down to it, you can't justify the practice for any other reason besides it's the employer's right to be a prick. It may just fall away in the next boom cycle, like dress codes in the Bay Area. Then companies will again bitch and moan about disloyal workers, forgetting their previous behavior.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>I got Kele as my poster girl. You'll want to say she's the exception,
>but believing it isn't the same as proving it.

She didn't take smoking breaks; the people at CPS did. Different situation.

You want to generalize your sitation at CPS as the norm. That makes any countering evidence revelent.

[billvon 3,110]

>You want to generalize your sitation at CPS as the norm.

Nope! In our case, smokers took breaks, and so in our case, we took more vacation time to compensate. If that applies at other companies it would be an equitable thing to do. If it doesn't apply, then the comparison isn't valid.

It may well be that there are companies out there full of Kelels who do not take smoking breaks, and whose habits do not influence their work. If that's the case, great, there's no real difference in time off/vacation/breaktime etc. Often that is not the case, though.

[jumpwally 0]

Yah,,on your way to 300 jumps get some taco's for the ride up, that'll make ya swoop like the big dogs,,and when ya screw up blame it on grease,,its a never ending cycle of nonsense........i smoke and i agree its stupid and senseless and i will not defend it. Time will show all the other shit choice's people make are not any better,,,just watch....

smile, be nice, enjoy life
FB # - 1083

[boudy 0]

>>Because when it comes down to it, you can't justify the practice for any other reason besides it's the employer's right to be a prick.<<

From the company president's statement on their website:

'...
WEYCO is in business to help other companies save money and improve employee health
through innovative benefit plans. The health plans we create offer hundreds of options—and our
approach to smoking may not be for everybody—but it's natural for us to take a leadership
position on this issue.

Clearly, smoking is dangerous to smokers and others.

In fall 2003, we decided that, as of Jan. 1,
2005, we would no longer employ smokers.
Since then, we’ve assisted employees through a series of meetings about the program, as well as
supportive efforts including smoking-cessation classes, medication, and acupuncture. We’ve
implemented the change gradually, encouraging smokers to become healthier and remain
WEYCO employees.

We also provide employees with a $35 monthly incentive to use a fitness facility, another $65 for
meeting modest fitness goals. We created and use walking trails on our campus.

While trying to be sensitive to smokers’ personal predicament, we’re also saying, “You can
choose to smoke after Jan. 1, but if so, you’ll need to find other employment.”

Some call this a violation of privacy, pointing to the principle that “what you do in your own
home is your own business.” But they forget the part about “so long as it doesn’t harm anyone
else.”

Michigan businesses have the right to protect themselves from the enormous financial harm that
smokers inflict upon society. So do individual employees and taxpayers.
• Michigan’s smoking-related health-care costs amount to $2.65 billion a year.
• Lost employee productivity due to smoking totals another $3.4 billion.
• Every Michigan household pays $557 in taxes for smoking-related illnesses annually.
• And each smoker costs his employer more than $4,000 a year in absenteeism, medical
benefits, earnings lost to sickness or premature death, etc.
But it's not just about saving money. It's about saving lives.
• Smoking kills 4.9 million people worldwide each year.
• In Michigan, the smoking death toll is 16,000 a year—more than alcohol, AIDS, car crashes,
illegal drugs, murders, and suicides combined.
• On average, smokers die 10 years earlier than non-smokers.

Despite facts like these, we also get the question: “What will companies ban next—unhealthy
eating, drinking, and sexual behavior?”

The answer is no. We offer many incentives for employees to make healthy lifestyle choices.
Compliance is voluntary, and the result has been a demonstrable improvement in wellness. Still,
anyone concerned about limiting employers’ right to specify terms of employment should know
that federal law protects people with conditions like obesity, alcoholism, and AIDS.

But there’s no right to indulge in tobacco use.

WEYCO is proud of its stance on smoking and wellness. For every smoker who quits because of
it, there will be many people—family members, friends, co-workers—who are very thankful the
person won’t be going to an early grave. '

>>This smoking ban seems likely to spread, and likely to lead to other companies adding their own intrusive policies. At which point I wouldn't be surprised to see Congress stepping in.<<

I would be astonished to see the "right to smoke" lobby win the day in Congress over the health insurance lobby and "hands-off business" lobby. Employee rights and job security issues (except for politicians) aren't very high on the agenda with the powers that be currently.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I would be astonished to see the "right to smoke" lobby win the day in Congress over the health insurance lobby and "hands-off business" lobby. Employee rights and job security issues (except for politicians) aren't very high on the agenda with the powers that be currently.

Wait till a company tries to ban gun ownership - the GOP/NRA will be there in a heart beat. But just like you posted here, a company can invent a lot of statistics to show how much better off everyone would be. It's always easy when you only count the costs side of the equation. WEYCO alluded to it with the line that smokers on average live 10 years less. That's a lot of money saved in pensions, SS, and Medicare.

I'm also not seeing how they can so lightly dismiss obesity, which has very expensive health care consequences, more deaths, and hurts their image with clients much more than their employees' private smoking. But as they put it, the law might interfere, so they're picking on the minority interest while they can.

If I were going to pick on one, legality aside, it would definitely be the drunks. The smokers and fatsos may be sick more often, but their brain is fully there for the duration of the time they're at their desk.

[ahegeman 0]

Quote

If I were going to pick on one, legality aside, it would definitely be the drunks. The smokers and fatsos may be sick more often, but their brain is fully there for the duration of the time they're at their desk.

As a smoking fatso who's usually drunk, I take grave offense at your remarks.

---------------------------------------------------------------
There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'.
--Dave Barry

[dorbie 0]

Quote

>>Because when it comes down to it, you can't justify the practice for any other reason besides it's the employer's right to be a prick.<<

From the company president's statement on their website:

'...
WEYCO is in business to help other companies save money and improve employee health
through innovative benefit plans. The health plans we create offer hundreds of options—and our
approach to smoking may not be for everybody—but it's natural for us to take a leadership
position on this issue.

Clearly, smoking is dangerous to smokers and others.

In fall 2003, we decided that, as of Jan. 1,
2005, we would no longer employ smokers.
Since then, we’ve assisted employees through a series of meetings about the program, as well as
supportive efforts including smoking-cessation classes, medication, and acupuncture. We’ve
implemented the change gradually, encouraging smokers to become healthier and remain
WEYCO employees.

We also provide employees with a $35 monthly incentive to use a fitness facility, another $65 for
meeting modest fitness goals. We created and use walking trails on our campus.

While trying to be sensitive to smokers’ personal predicament, we’re also saying, “You can
choose to smoke after Jan. 1, but if so, you’ll need to find other employment.”

Some call this a violation of privacy, pointing to the principle that “what you do in your own
home is your own business.” But they forget the part about “so long as it doesn’t harm anyone
else.”

Michigan businesses have the right to protect themselves from the enormous financial harm that
smokers inflict upon society. So do individual employees and taxpayers.
• Michigan’s smoking-related health-care costs amount to $2.65 billion a year.
• Lost employee productivity due to smoking totals another $3.4 billion.
• Every Michigan household pays $557 in taxes for smoking-related illnesses annually.
• And each smoker costs his employer more than $4,000 a year in absenteeism, medical
benefits, earnings lost to sickness or premature death, etc.
But it's not just about saving money. It's about saving lives.
• Smoking kills 4.9 million people worldwide each year.
• In Michigan, the smoking death toll is 16,000 a year—more than alcohol, AIDS, car crashes,
illegal drugs, murders, and suicides combined.
• On average, smokers die 10 years earlier than non-smokers.

Despite facts like these, we also get the question: “What will companies ban next—unhealthy
eating, drinking, and sexual behavior?”

The answer is no. We offer many incentives for employees to make healthy lifestyle choices.
Compliance is voluntary, and the result has been a demonstrable improvement in wellness. Still,
anyone concerned about limiting employers’ right to specify terms of employment should know
that federal law protects people with conditions like obesity, alcoholism, and AIDS.

But there’s no right to indulge in tobacco use.

WEYCO is proud of its stance on smoking and wellness. For every smoker who quits because of
it, there will be many people—family members, friends, co-workers—who are very thankful the
person won’t be going to an early grave. '

>>This smoking ban seems likely to spread, and likely to lead to other companies adding their own intrusive policies. At which point I wouldn't be surprised to see Congress stepping in.<<

I would be astonished to see the "right to smoke" lobby win the day in Congress over the health insurance lobby and "hands-off business" lobby. Employee rights and job security issues (except for politicians) aren't very high on the agenda with the powers that be currently.

Maybe someone can prosecute the fascist for violating the civil rights of employees?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I'm also not seeing how they can so lightly dismiss obesity, which has very expensive health care consequences, more deaths, and hurts their image with clients much more than their employees' private smoking. But as they put it, the law might interfere, so they're picking on the minority interest while they can.

From the article "We also provide employees with a $35 monthly incentive to use a fitness facility, another $65 for
meeting modest fitness goals. We created and use walking trails on our campus. "

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Ron 10]

Quote

I'm also not seeing how they can so lightly dismiss obesity, which has very expensive health care consequences, more deaths, and hurts their image with clients much more than their employees' private smoking.

I don't see them as taking it lightly.

Quote

We also provide employees with a $35 monthly incentive to use a fitness facility, another $65 for meeting modest fitness goals. We created and use walking trails on our campus

Quote

federal law protects people with conditions like obesity, alcoholism, and AIDS.

Still while they can'f fire a fatty, they DO seem to take it seriously.

I don't suspect that tobacco would win in court.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

From the article "We also provide employees with a $35 monthly incentive to use a fitness facility, another $65 for
meeting modest fitness goals. We created and use walking trails on our campus. "

That's taking it lightly. People won't change their behavior merely because you subsidize a gym membership and offer them $2/day.

An equilivent response would be to tag it onto the performance targets (bonus), and to direct them to use an hour of their day, at least three times per week, onto this task. And to give them parking in a remote lot so they can put those "walking trails" to use.

[Jimbo 0]

More news about Weyers here

Health Care Company That Fired Smokers Also Targeting Fat
Weyers Won't Fire Employees For Obesity

POSTED: 7:20 am PST January 27, 2005

A Michigan health care company that fired four employees for smoking is also targeting fat.

Howard Weyers, the founder of Weyco Inc., said he wants to tell fat workers to lose weight or else, Reuters reported.

Weyers brought in weight experts to speak with employees, according to Reuters. The company also offers employees a $35 monthly incentive for joining a health club and $65 for meeting fitness goals.

But the company isn't planning to fire employees for unhealthy lifestyle choices, according to a Weyco news release.

"Anyone concerned about limiting employers' rights to specify terms of employment should know that federal law protects people with conditions like obesity, alcoholism and AIDS. But there's no right to indulge in tobacco," the news release said.

Four Weyco employees were fired after the company enacted a new policy this month, allowing workers to be fired if they smoke, even if the smoking takes place after hours or at home.

The four employees were fired for refusing to take a test to determine whether they smoke. Weyers said the company doesn't want to pay the higher health care costs associated with smoking.

An official of the company -- which administers health benefits -- estimated that 18 to 20 of its 200 employees were smokers when the policy was first announced in 2003. As many as 14 of them quit smoking before the policy went into effect.

The company's Web site states:

Weyco Inc. is a non-smoking company that strongly supports its employees in living healthy lifestyles.

Quote

But the company isn't planning to fire employees for unhealthy lifestyle choices, according to a Weyco news release.

How can anyone there believe this? Isn't that exactly what they did with the smokers?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[Ron 10]

Quote

An equilivent response would be to tag it onto the performance targets (bonus), and to direct them to use an hour of their day, at least three times per week, onto this task

Read it again:

Quote

From the article "We also provide employees with a $35 monthly incentive to use a fitness facility, another $65 for
meeting modest fitness goals. We created and use walking trails on our campus. "

Quote

And to give them parking in a remote lot so they can put those "walking trails" to use.

So, me a guy that works out must be punished by walking a long way so some fat body can walk also?

I legally can't have a "fat" lot. So you would punish me for no reason.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

So, me a guy that works out must be punished by walking a long way so some fat body can walk also?

No sympathy, now if you lived in the north with -20 weather, then maybe that's a 'punishment'. Tough it out, fatty.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants