City wants to nip tobacco use in the butt

MrLiberty · #1 (**permalink**) 04-19-2010, 11:11 AM

Quote:

First, Brooksville officials cracked down on employees who didn't use deodorant or wear underwear, which sparked debate about whether they were infringing on workers' personal choice.

Now city officials might crack down on employee tobacco use — both at work and during their personal time — by requiring them to quit smoking after one year. The proposal would also disqualify for employment anyone who admits to the habit.

During Monday's 5:30 p.m. meeting at City Hall, council members will consider a tobacco policy that forbids smoking or chewing the substance on city property, in city-owned vehicles and personal vehicles that are on city property or are being used for a city function.

The policy applies to city employees and the public alike.

For employees, they would have one year to quit using smoking or chewing tobacco or face disciplinary action that includes termination, "Depending on the facts and circumstances of each infraction."

Employees could also pay to participate in a smoking cessation program on their own time.

Although City Manager Jennene Norman-Vacha wasn't available for comment Friday, Mayor Lara Bradburn said she supports the creation of a tobacco-free workplace and any program that encourages employees to quit smoking. She also agrees with the practice of not hiring people who smoke.

"There's no reason people should smoke," Bradburn said. "Nothing good ever came from smoking."

continued at site....

City wants to nip tobacco use in the butt

We had a case here in Mich. where an employer fired employees for smoking at home. The case went to court and the employees who were fired lost. It seems that an employer can fire you for this.

I argued back then that this amounted to being a slave to the employer because he had the right to tell you what to do even when you were off company property and the company clock.

Now an employer should have the right to not hire smokers if he/she/they want. However, if they have always hired these people they should not have a right to control what a person does when they are off the clock! If they want to charge more for insurance coverage to those who smoke go ahead, but controlling behaviour after work I say no!

MrLiberty · #2 (**permalink**) 04-19-2010, 11:24 AM

Quote:

A Michigan company’s decision to show the door to workers who smoke, even if it’s on their own time, has alarmed privacy and workers’ rights advocates and raised concerns about whether pizza boxes and six packs are the next to go. Okemos-based Weyco Inc., a medical benefits administrator, said its offer of smoking cessation classes and support groups helped 18 to 20 of the company’s nearly 200 workers quit smoking over the past 15 months. But the four who couldn’t — or wouldn’t — no longer had jobs on Jan. 1. “We had told them they had a choice, and they chose to leave basically before the policy took effect,” said Weyco chief financial officer Gary Climes. “We’re not saying you can’t smoke in your home. We just say you can’t smoke and work here.” Such policies basically say employers can tell workers how to live their lives even in the privacy of their own homes, something they have no business doing, said Lewis Maltby, president of The National Workrights Institute in Princeton, N.J., a part of the American Civil Liberties Union until 2000. “If a company said, ‘We’re going to cut down on our health care costs by forbidding anyone from eating at McDonald’s,’ they could do it,” he said. “There are a thousand things about people’s private lives that employers don’t like for a thousand different reasons.” Some companies, while not going as far as Weyco, are trying to lower their health care costs by refusing to hire any more smokers. Union Pacific Corp. began rejecting smokers’ applications in Texas, Idaho, Tennessee, Arkansas, Washington state, Arizona and parts of Kansas and Nebraska last year and hopes to add more states. On July 1, it will make all Union Pacific property smoke-free, including trains, a policy that now applies only to its company headquarters in Omaha, Neb. Public affairs director John Bromley said the company estimates it will save $922 annually for each position it fills with a nonsmoker over one who smokes. It hired 5,500 new workers last year and plans to hire 700 this year. About a quarter of the company’s 48,000 employees now smoke, and Bromley said it’s clear they cost the company more money. “Looking at our safety records, (we know that) people who smoke seem to have higher accident rates than nonsmokers,” he said. “It’s no secret that people who smoke have more health issues than nonsmokers.” On Jan. 1, Kalamazoo Valley Community College stopped hiring smokers for full-time positions at both of its Michigan campuses. Part-time staffers who smoke won’t be hired for full-time jobs, and the 20 to 25 openings that occur each year among the college’s 365 full-time staff positions will go only to nonsmokers. “Our No. 1 goal is to reduce our health claims,” said Sandy Bohnet, vice president for human resources. “Research tends to show that tobacco users lose more time from work. … So many diseases can be headed off if people simply pay attention to their health care.” Some states protect workers who smoke, saying they can’t be discriminated against for that reason. But Michigan is one of 22 states that doesn’t have such a law, according to the Washington-based Bureau of National Affairs. Michigan lawmakers passed a bill protecting smokers about 10 years ago, but it was vetoed by then-Gov. John Engler, said ACLU of Michigan spokeswoman Wendy Wagenheim. Climes said many companies try to hold down health care costs by increasing copays and deductibles charged to employees. But that doesn’t decrease their health care needs.

Michigan company fires workers for smoking at home | The Michigan Daily

tristanrobin · #3 (**permalink**) 04-19-2010, 01:15 PM

I hate smoking - but this is an insanely monarchist agenda. An employee doesn't equal being a serf.

Oftencold · #4 (**permalink**) 04-20-2010, 04:20 AM

OK, if smoking is a legal act, but it can be forbidden by employers because it might cause medical expense to others, or cause offense, then I suppose that they can forbid abortion too. "Good for the goose, game for the gander."

GottaGo · #5 (**permalink**) 04-20-2010, 07:59 AM

Well, looking at it from another point of view, I work for a company owned by some people who do not agree with drinking.

They have made it clear to Management staff that they do NOT want their employees (managers) to be seen locally getting drunk or doing other less-than-socially-correct activities. It is a reflection on the company.

I can understand that point of view, if it is made clear at the time of hire. However, to constrain someone for what they do behind closed doors is exceeding what I consider to be the boundries of sanity.

Somehow, I don't think this would hold up in a court of law if an employee who was a smoker at the time of hire is fired for not complying.

Oftencold · #6 (**permalink**) 04-20-2010, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaGo

Well, looking at it from another point of view, I work for a company owned by some people who do not agree with drinking.

They have made it clear to Management staff that they do NOT want their employees (managers) to be seen locally getting drunk or doing other less-than-socially-correct activities. It is a reflection on the company.

I can understand that point of view, if it is made clear at the time of hire. However, to constrain someone for what they do behind closed doors is exceeding what I consider to be the boundries of sanity.

Somehow, I don't think this would hold up in a court of law if an employee who was a smoker at the time of hire is fired for not complying.

Ah! but we elected a man to the highest office in the word with a resume that would have not qualified him to run a convenience store.

We are already beyond he boundaries of sanity in this era, no?

GottaGo · #7 (**permalink**) 04-20-2010, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oftencold

Ah! but we elected a man to the highest office in the word with a resume tat would have not qualified him o run a shoe convenience store. We are already beyond he boundaries of sanity in the era, no?

No argument. But one can hope that somewhere, sanity yet may reign....

After all, we elected a hollywood actor, too.

MrLiberty · #8 (**permalink**) 04-20-2010, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaGo

Somehow, I don't think this would hold up in a court of law if an employee who was a smoker at the time of hire is fired for not complying.

It already has been upheld by a court of law though here in Michigan. In the case of the Michigan workers they sued for wrongful discharge and lost. Now I suppose you could sue under different grounds but I suspect the outcome to be the same. Until legislatures around the country pass laws to prohibit discrimination of smokers we will see more of this I'm afraid.

faithful_servant · #9 (**permalink**) 04-20-2010, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oftencold

Ah! but we elected a man to the highest office in the word with a resume that would have not qualified him to run a convenience store.
We are already beyond he boundaries of sanity in this era, no?

Puh-lease.... I think that Pres. Obama would do a very good job managing a 7-11.

cnredd · #10 (**permalink**) 04-20-2010, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by faithful_servant

Puh-lease.... I think that Pres. Obama would do a very good job managing a 7-11.

Yes he would...

He's already apologized to every future employee of 7-11 for America...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode