« Using the Personal Touch in Your Job Hunt | Main | Teamwork for Sale »

January 26, 2005

Lighting Up Can Get You Fired

A healthcare benefits company recently fired four of its employees for refusing to take a test that determines whether they smoke cigarettes. While it’s common practice these days to ban smoking in the office, Michigan-based Weyco Inc. is banning its employees from smoking -- period. Citing concerns over rising healthcare costs, the organization justifies its move to fire all employees if they smoke, whether on the job or on their own time.

I don’t smoke, and I feel sick around people who do. I used to work for a European company in which the executive-level employees would smoke freely around the office. It made for a stomach-turning work environment; eventually, a bunch of us peanut-gallery dwellers spoke up and convinced the company to get these folks to restrict their smoking to the quarters of their private offices.

While I agree with having people refrain from smoking at work, where the health of others would be jeopardized, I wouldn’t condone a move to fire anyone who smokes on his own time, on principle. If companies fear the long-term healthcare costs associated with employees who smoke, they should take a look at other behavioral patterns that may lead to the same financial outcome. For instance, why not look at an employee’s traffic violations? Doctor visits? Sleep patterns? Eating habits? (Gasp. I would be in trouble for that last one).

Firing someone because she chooses to smoke on her own time (as bad as this habit can be) is a borderline autocratic move by an employer. As long as that person’s habit does not infringe on another employee’s human (or work-related) rights, the company shouldn’t intervene. And as to rising costs, there are numerous other factors that lead to expensive health care.

Take stress, for instance. According to this article, the American Institute of Stress estimates the cost of workplace stress to employers at more than $300 billion each year.

Perhaps employers should worry more about alleviating stress for their employees than making headlines by patrolling for smokers. Ironically, moreover, employees may stop lighting up if they feel less overwhelmed.

Share this post: Digg, StumbleUpon, del.icio.us, Facebook, Twitter, etc.
Bookmark and Share

Posted by Maya on January 26, 2005 at 12:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (38) | TrackBack (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515e7c69e200d83433485c53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Lighting Up Can Get You Fired:

Comments

I don't smoke; in my adult life, I may have smoked 8 cigarettes over 22 years, so I maintain I don't smoke. (Having spent much of my life as a commuter in NYC, where one is subject to inhale all sorts of pollution from subways, brake drums, etc. I reject the false claims of second-hand smoke, but if you include my days in bars and clubs, I've smoked more than 8 cigarettes)

I think employers can advertise for non-smokers, can encourage non-smoking, but cannot use off-hour smoking as a basis for termination. I know a smoker who jogs; I don't smoke, but I don't jog either: by some weird rationale, who is the healthier employee?

First they came for the smokers, then they came for Big Macs... next it'll be coffee, and then heaven help us all!

Posted by: Charlie on the Pennsylvania Turnpike | Jan 27, 2005 7:51:01 AM

I feel what you do on your own time, should not be counted against you. I smoke, but, I do not somke on company time. I smoke at lunch only. It doesn't hurt to go 3 to 4 hours without a smoke. I have a very stressful job working with a lawyer. I do eat alot of mints to take place of a cigarette.

Posted by: Dennise Woods | Feb 23, 2005 9:22:40 AM

Banning someone from smoking is ridiculous. What about all the obese employees, and stressed out employees? At my previous jobs I've smoked on breaks and at lunch only. I smoked in "employee designated smoking areas" so as not to offend those who don't smoke. Plus, I believe alcohol abuse is a lot worse----talk about calling in sick alot due to hangovers! I would NOT work for a company that banned smoking---PERIOD!

Posted by: Kim Ferguson | Feb 23, 2005 11:10:20 AM

I'm afraid that if something like this was taken up by employers all across our great United States of America, there would be such a cry of outrage it would be heard around the world. It's bad enough that many of our freedoms have either been highly restricted or completely abolished, but this is borderline oppression. If a person smokes against the company's wishes, rather than fire them, raise the employee's share of healthcare contribution dollars. That is the only reasonable solution. I also agree that if they infringe on our right to personal preferences, where will the next strike be???

Posted by: Lois H | Feb 23, 2005 11:40:32 AM

saying someone at can't smoke sounds to me woulld be against constitional rights, for example telling people can't talk at work. jobs have allready have taken enough from people while at work, if a person whishes to smoke noing what the consiquenses are should be his or her god given right. big corp. should worry about how many adults and children are homless, and starving they should worry more about that then about an adult that pays there way in society about smokeing.

Posted by: robert | Feb 23, 2005 12:09:53 PM

i am a smoker and that is a violation of one's constitutinal writes,and a violation of job descrimination law's.if those employies of that company look in job discrimination law's they might find that they can make a law suit against that company.i know i would. and they should.

Posted by: michael | Feb 23, 2005 12:59:26 PM

So who costs more to keep.
The people who smoke off the job or the millions of people that eat to much and end up having more health related problems like the fat cats who sit behind a desk all day.
Someday they want what George Orwell wrote about.
Good little robots who do what thier told to do with no complaints.
America is going down hill fast.
Lets close all the fast food places and eat nuts and berries.

Posted by: Willaim | Feb 23, 2005 1:08:50 PM

Hummmmmm.....Can you say lawsuit? Yes I am a smoker and yes I realize the health risks. This doesn't make quitting any easier. At any rate, to fire someone due to a "legal" activity is unconstitutional. America is founded on freedom of choice, within the limits of the law. As long as the individuals only smoke in designated areas and only on personal breaks, I don't see a justifiable reason for termination. Who died and made these people dieties? Taking away personal freedom is WRONG!!!!!

Posted by: Katrina | Feb 23, 2005 2:34:21 PM

As a thirty year pipe smoker, I feel that tobacco restrictions are in the same league as alcohol and drug restrictions. Since recreational drug usage and recreational alcohol usage cannot be punished per se, then recreational tobacco usage termination is blatent discrimination with treble damage legal remedy results. I am sure that hiring restrictions could be instituted to reduce certain members of society without damage, but once employed (unless a right to work environment) then certain privileges and conditions bind both parties in the employment agreement/contract. Overall, our personal liberties will continue to take a beating until our planet becomes unable to sustain its population level and mass extinction takes place - not a pleasant thought. L8R & blessed be.

Posted by: Terry | Feb 23, 2005 3:42:20 PM

How does the test work? If you really is second-hand smoke, wouldn't it show up on your test if you lived with a smoker????
Have you read Weyco Inc.s policies on drugs, alcohol, & tabacco?
If you have you would already know that not only are they going to fire ALL smoker's, but also that they DO allow their employee's to DRINK ALCOHOL at their company Christmas parties, and other functions!!!
Not only can you be an alcoholic, just so long as you don't consume it at work, but they'll also provide the alcohol for special occassions!
So...they don't have a problem paying the cost of liver transplants (which everyone knows is more expensive than most houses)?
Smokers and non-smokers alike have to agree that smokers are being targeted, and it IS a form of discrimination.
If "we" let "them" do this to us, what will be next? Beer at a bar-b-que? Champagne at your first child's wedding? A cup of coffee with your breakfast?

Posted by: jd | Feb 23, 2005 8:26:39 PM

I will find out if any of the Company's that I do business with use Weyco. If they do I will no longer do business with them. They have a choice, but I have a choice also. It doesn't matter rather I smoke or not, WHO do they think they are?

Posted by: Jerry De Dapper | Feb 23, 2005 9:16:57 PM

Smoking can definately get out of hand. I have worked at an office where the employees' were taking advantage of smoking breaks and it became funny to see someone going out every fifteen minutes for a smoke which can affect the employer. From a diplomatic view I do not beleive that employees should be tested for smoking, especially if the employee has passed his or her probation because that is discrimination.

Posted by: Tara H. | Feb 23, 2005 9:40:30 PM

I am a smoker,and i feel that this is just wrong,and if someone does'nt step in and do something about it,there will be other employers who think they can single out employees,and tell employees what they can and cannot do.where will it end,no drinking,no smoking.it is hard for me to beleive that something like this is really going on.

Posted by: wayne c. white | Feb 24, 2005 12:04:21 AM

I smoke and I find it appalling that these companies think they can dictate our private lives. Do they ban people from drinking off the job. Alcohol kills more people and causes more accidents than cigarettes ever did and that has been proven. Also alcohol causes family problems. However people don't ban the consumption of alcohol in private or public. It cost alot less also. WE HAVE RIGHTS! Our private lives are ours. We live in a free country.

Posted by: stephanie | Feb 24, 2005 4:27:58 AM

I agree smoking can be a serious problem for those who donot smoke, and quite often we will find those that donnot smoke are the ones who really won't to put smokers in their place. What about the acohol the nonsmokers may take in per day? I think they should be more concerned about where their tax dollar is going other than thinking about it going for medical bills for smokers.Recently i have seen it go to places it doesn't need to be, and what about all that food they take in per day that puts all that weight on them that can make them sick enough that they have a medical bill themselves? I think they are way out of their field.

Posted by: jo love | Feb 24, 2005 10:37:29 PM

all hail POGO

Posted by: jmdavis | Feb 25, 2005 12:57:54 AM

It is absolutely infuriating that companies feel they have the right to dictate over an employee's rights during non working hours.
These aspects are seen in Japan, and they have the highest suicide rate in the world due to the stress placed upon them by their employers.
I don't live in this country to aspire to the lack of freedom other countries have.

Posted by: Karen | Feb 28, 2005 1:17:07 PM

I am a smoker, I agree it is a bad habit. I am working on quitting but until I do I believe it is my right. I think the employees who were fired, should sue the company for infringing on their constitional right. This sounds like it is going to be a biggy for the US Supreme Courts to deal with along with the AMA, if they are working with the company in any way.

Posted by: kacloe | Mar 1, 2005 2:08:34 AM

make all the smokers stop smoking and who will pay all the tax revinue thats suposably going to helth beniffits? do all smokers get cancer,I dont think so.food for thought,non smokers might want to give some slack too us smokers or thay may have to pay that tax.no big, the GOV. will get there"s

Posted by: mike | Mar 1, 2005 11:53:34 PM

I am in the camp that it is unconstitutional to mandate legal activities outside work or risk termination.

I also agree with factual proof that alcohol is a much worse abused drug and obesity is the rising concern to health costs (and potentially outpacing smoking-related health issues at the current rate of triglyceride and pre-diabetes increases in both adults and CHILDREN).

Okay, so we've now shown I agree with telling me what I do legally outside work is improper, and drugs and obesity is more of an issue.


What I want some blog reader to do, is tell us how we can let our displeasure be known to Weyco, and actually be listened to?


Their web site and phone number are for new and existing clients and are not set up to properly take complaints.


Anybody with the free time, please, tell us. Let's properly and personally petition them. If this fails and others want more action, we can then decide if we want to publically protest and make sure their clients see this. Call me freedom of choice-centric.

But for now, I think making them know the informed public does not approve will be enough for their PR and HR to consider changes back to a more realistic policy.


Josh

Posted by: Josh | Mar 31, 2005 3:29:57 PM

Do a little research on employment and law and you'll find that the "Constitutional Rights" which a number of you have cited are NOT applicable to the workplace. Workplace law is goverend by the Labor Relations Act and the Department of Labor. Largely, unless you have a specific contractual agreement, you are "an employee at will".
i.e.- you may leave whenever you like and the employer may terminate your employment for virtually any reason.

Can't you help but wonder if this it how the framers of the Constitution REALLY intended it to be applied.(or more appropriately not applied)

As far as "discrimination" I suppose you never know but I think it would be a stretch. The employer will argue that not providing a "healthy" work environment is not fair to it's other employees and has a negative affect on it's bottom line.

You might have a difficult time finding an attorney to take on the case (if there was one) because of tort reform. They only want sure winners.

These "changes" you see are merely an extension of what is taking place in all facets of American life, the suppression of rights and choice under the guise of necessity, security, and common good.

Welcome to modern America. You asked for it...you got it. Now stop complaining, throw the smokes away, dump the booze and go get yourself a 3rd job. You are going to need it to pay for the rising energy costs and for the inevitable rising taxes necessary to pay the growing national debt!

Also remember that "Big Brother" monitors all of your email via a program called Carnivore. This includes your messages to this website.

It's all legal, gotta love that homeland security effort.

Posted by: tim | Apr 5, 2005 11:02:28 PM

hi im jojo blwo n i am jojo i say nope to dope an yes to chess byee
sincerely jojo BLOW

Posted by: jjojoo blow | Apr 13, 2005 10:07:54 PM

All I can say is: I wish my boss would say something like this to me so I could have the pleasure of telling him/her to go get f-----!!!

Posted by: JD | Apr 14, 2005 2:18:56 PM

u PUT MY NAME AND TIMS SWITCHED U STUPID PPLLLLL O MY NO SMOKIN

Posted by: jjojoo blow | Apr 18, 2005 1:34:00 AM

I LOVE TO SMOKE. to me it is very healthy. it works better than pills but not weed.

Posted by: Kristin | May 27, 2005 1:09:16 PM

Post a comment