[Tommy Meehan]

Do You Smoke? You're Fired!
Companies' Off-Duty Bans Raise a Stink


By Stephanie Armour, USA TODAY


May 12) - More companies are taking action against employees who smoke off-duty, and, in an extreme trend that some call troubling, some are now firing or banning the hiring of workers who light up even on their own time.

The outright bans raise new questions about how far companies can go in regulating workers' behavior when they are off the clock. The crackdown is coming in part as a way to curb soaring health care costs, but critics say companies are violating workers' privacy rights. The zero-tolerance policies are coming as more companies adopt smoke-free workplaces.

Weyco, a medical benefits provider based in Okemos, Mich., this year banned employees from smoking on their own time. Employees must submit to random tests that detect if someone has smoked. They must also agree to searches of briefcases, purses or other belongings if company officials suspect tobacco or other banned substances have been brought on-site. Those who smoke may be suspended or fired.

About 20 employees have quit smoking under the policy, and a handful were fired after they opted out of the testing. "The main goal is to elevate the health status of our employees," says Gary Climes, chief financial officer.

At Investors Property Management in Seattle, smokers are not hired. Employees who smoked before the ban was passed about two years ago are not fired; however, they can't get medical insurance through the company.

Alaska Airlines has a no-smoking policy for employees, and new hires must submit to a urine test to prove they're tobacco-free.

"The debate has gone from where they can smoke to whether they can smoke," says Marshall Tanick, a Minneapolis-based employment lawyer.

Such bans are not legal everywhere: More than 20 states have passed laws that bar companies from discriminating against workers for lifestyle decisions.

There are other ways that companies are taking action against off-duty smoking, such as raising health care premiums for smokers.

Employers say it's about creating a healthy workforce. But it's also a bottom-line issue: Tobacco causes more than 440,000 deaths annually and results in more than $75 billion in direct medical costs a year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Some smokers' rights groups are vowing legal action.

"These matters will be decided in the courts," says Redmond, Wash.-based Norman Kjono, with Forces, a smokers' rights group. "You're creating a class of unemployable citizens. It won't stand."

And legal experts fear companies will try to control other aspects of employees' off-duty lifestyle, a trend that is already happening. Some companies are firing, suspending or charging higher insurance premiums to workers who are overweight, have high cholesterol or participate in risky activities.

05/12/2005 07:06
Copyright 2005 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Did anyone see the New Yorker magazine cover of a few years ago spoofing the now familiar sight of office workers congregating outside lobbies and etc to have a smoke? The cover illustration showed white-collar employees casually standing on an upper-story window ledge chatting and puffing away. Tommy

[bluewings]

I think its a little extreme to make the workers take test and fire them if they have smoked, but after living with someone who smokes my intire life... that sounds like a good idea to me.

[angelize56]

Welcome to TSG bluewings ....I hate cigarette smoke...my entire family is allergic to it...that's a blessing!

[angelize56]

Tommy & bluewings: This issue is discussed extensively here too in case you want to see other's opinons:

http://forums.techguy.org/t323336

[Tommy Meehan]

Originally Posted by angelize56

I hate cigarette smoke...my entire family is allergic to it

The planet we live on is allergic to auto exhaust. Experts - including at NASA's Goddard Space Center - all believe global warming is well underway. It's main cause is CO2 exhaust - "Greenhouse Gas" - from vehicles and we have, conservatively, about 40-50 years left before we begin to see really drastic climate changes. Worst of all, CO2 in the atmosphere dissipates very very slowly.

Thanks for not driving-Have a good day!

Tommy

[angelize56]

Hi TGG: Read the other thread I posted the url to...you'll see lots of different opinions in there...like why should the company they work for have to pay the medical costs for illness caused by their employees smoking...I think that's part of the big debate!

Tommy: I'm on disability right now and only drive about 3 or 4 times a year!

[prospect]

I think this is nuts! If these companies are so worried about the cost of health care, why don't they scream about the cost that the 20 million plus illegal aliens are costing the American taxpayers in health care?

This country is moving closer, and closer, to a dictatorship.

[Fidelista]

Originally Posted by teengeekgrrl

Does anyone know if it's in the Constitution anywhere to allow workers' rights or something pertaining to this?

Hello teen. No , its not in the U.S. Constitution. Workers rights are few by law. As far as I know , a company can treat employees in this way legally {unless it violates a Union contract}, although it isnt right---intrusive into personal lives.
It could be decided by law however.
Whether workers have rights or privilages ---is a matter of opinion. Either way--we are losing them fast. >f

[Sequal7]

Originally Posted by prospect

I think this is nuts! If these companies are so worried about the cost of health care, why don't they scream about the cost that the 20 million plus illegal aliens are costing the American taxpayers in health care?

This country is moving closer, and closer, to a dictatorship.

I think the answer is simply because they dont employ these people, although I HAVENT HEARD OF A LEGAL ALIEN....

Employer have the right to foresee, or manage their businesses, as long as it is isnt blatently discriminating. If the general consensus it to abolish smokers, then what about the fat persons working for the same company? arent they a higher risk to the health care premiums of the employer, due to the health risks that are proven obvious from being fat?

fact is, its descrimination any way you slice it.

[Fidelista]

Originally Posted by teengeekgrrl

the next Amendment to the Constitution will probably have something to do with workers' rights. Either that or the gay marriage or abortion amendments, which probably have too much opposition to stay in place. But workers' rights probably have to be written into the Constitution at some point.

teengeek. There is probably no one on this board that cares more about workers rights than me---it my job.
I disagree with opinion that workers rights be written in U.S constitution, that document should be used to curb Govt power , set in place to say what they {GOVT} cannot do. Not the place for labor law.
There are 3 ways to do this.
One >federal labor laws--expanded.
Two. State labor boards with the power to arbitrate ---set standards and enforce.
Three> Unions with legal contracts.
I do believe that State Labor boards and fair practice laws would help.
If anyone believes that business will not abuse---they are in dreamworld.
There has to be some recourse--some say by workers how they are treated.
It is just another form of "checks and balances". Without it , business will do as it pleases ---without any bounds, or mercy and fairness is un-enforceble It has always been so.>f

[Fidelista]

Originally Posted by teengeekgrrl

It wasn't always used to curb gov't power. Prohibition did not curb the power of the gov't. It illegalized alchohol. I still think it should be written in the constitution, but you definitely have a right to disagree.

Actually we agree completely. Restricting citizens rights ---forbidding behavior ect , is not what the U.S> constitution should be used for---for example the gay issues or the "prohibition of alcohol".
You are correct that it was misused and some would like to do it again---have made the attempt---prohibit gay marriage or whatever they want to outlaw---restrict.
I think the U.S constitution is something that should not fooled with unless it prohibits or sets limits to Govt power or reach, over citizens lives.
Business is another matter. Laws can be enacted if polititians are not bought by business.
Now, in my opinion, the citizen ---worker will take a backseat to business, they after all, own the current adminstration, totally. >f

[bassetman]

This obviously has been debated here, but I think this is none of the employer's beeswax!