After you read the story, let us know what you think.

More and more that cigarette, or drink at home, that political candidate you supported, even your eating habits, are coming under the scrutiny of your boss.

If he doesn’t approve, it might even cost you your job, which is what happened to two Michigan women, Anita Epolito and Cara Stiffler.

Anita and Cara were considered model employees at Weyco, an insurance consulting firm outside of Lansing, Mich., both having worked at the company for years. The women sat side-by-side, sharing workloads – and after work – sharing the occasional cigarette.

But at a company benefits meeting two years ago, the company president announced, "As of January 1st, 2005, anyone that has nicotine in their body will be fired,” Anita remembers. “And we sat there in awe. And I spoke out at that time. ‘You can't do that to us’ And then he said, ‘Yes, I can.’ I said, ‘That's not legal.’ And he came back with, ‘Yes, it is.’”

And it was legal: in Michigan, there’s no law that prevents a boss from firing people virtually at will. At Weyco, that meant no smoking at work, no smoking at home, no smoking period.

Weyco gave employees 15 months to quit, before subjecting them to random nicotine testing. If you fail, you’re out.

More:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/28/60minutes/main990617.shtml

They should be allowed to smoke on there own turff.

Reading old articles it seems at one time that those who politely asked, "please don't smoke infront of me" were the "bad" guys.  My oh my how the tables have turned.

I love this one:
A year later, Anita and Cara are still unemployed, still smoking and fuming.
Oh, those punsters at CBS news. When they don't make up they news, they make it funny. 

Well, it's his company. The guy really seems to be being a jerk about it though -- I don't think I'd want to work for him anyway.

I don't think this is right. What someone does in the privicy of their own home (as long as it is legal) is nobody's business.  If it doesn't effect how they preform their job, then I don't think that an employer has the right to be that intrustive.




Cat

i think this should be part of the nondiscrimination act, frankly, you shouldn't be allowed to fire someone for smoking. i smoked for twenty years and quitting is hard, hard, hard. i mean hello? it's an addiction!

i think this should be part of the nondiscrimination act, frankly, you shouldn't be allowed to fire someone for smoking. i smoked for twenty years and quitting is hard, hard, hard. i mean hello? it's an addiction!


What else shouldn't you be allowed to fire someone for?

What else shouldn't you be allowed to fire someone for?


wanting to dress up like a girl to sneak into the women's bathroom. you shouldn't be allowed to fire someone for that.

they were talking about that on the radio this morning, i thought that was sorta funny.

wanting to dress up like a girl to sneak into the women's bathroom. you shouldn't be allowed to fire someone for that.

they were talking about that on the radio this morning, i thought that was sorta funny.


That brings up a good question.  I'll start another thread.

I can understand him wanting no smoking at work (on the premises), but dictating to his employees not to do it at home, in the car... etc that's f*&^ing insane!

This is way to intrusive.  It is his company and can say what is done on his dime, but once you are off the
clock it is yours.  If it doesn't interfere with your work, and it is legal, then he hasn't the right to call you on
it.  What next? People who don't attend church on Sunday? People who eat meat? People who don't
buy American autos?  He is an employer not an owner.

This is way to intrusive.  It is his company and can say what is done on his dime, but once you are off the
clock it is yours.  If it doesn't interfere with your work, and it is legal, then he hasn't the right to call you on
it.  What next? People who don't attend church on Sunday? People who eat meat? People who don't
buy American autos?  He is an employer not an owner.


On the other hand, since his is an employer, not an owner, people can choose to work for him or not.

This is utterly ridiculous.  However, it IS his company and he sets the policies ::)


Actually, I think it is  illegal.  As others have said, on his turf he makes the rules, but NOT when you're off the clock.  While given the current political climate it might be hard to pursue, I think Federal labor law would call this unjustified.  There should be only 4 reasons for firing, insubordination, malfeasance, incompetance, and crime.  It may be his company, but suppose he refused to hire blacks, or Jews, or hispanics?  That would be illegal too.  Just because you own a company doesn't mean you can do whatever you jolly well chose.  Workers have rights too.

It may be his company, but suppose he refused to hire blacks, or Jews, or hispanics?  That would be illegal too.  Just because you own a company doesn't mean you can do whatever you jolly well chose.  Workers have rights too.


EXACTLY! to fire someone based on an addiction is getting really close to firing someone for who they are, or for something they can't help, and that verges on discrimination to me.

It may be his company, but suppose he refused to hire blacks, or Jews, or hispanics?  That would be illegal too.  Just because you own a company doesn't mean you can do whatever you jolly well chose.  Workers have rights too.



But that would be illegal because there are specific laws AGAINST firing people for age, race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.

I think it is illegal in this country.  The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 makes it unlawful for one person to harass another.  Harassment is defined as "behaviour which, delibrately or otherwise, is hostile and/or offensive to the recipient or others and which unreasonably interferes with an individuals work or social life"

ISTM that stopping someone smoking at home is interfering with their social life and threatening to sack someone for doing so is hostile behaviour.

On the other hand, since his is an employer, not an owner, people can choose to work for him or not.


This is like the "American love it or leave it" argument.  This attitude is a bully mentality.  There are
somethings that are just not right and should be beyond outside control.  This is one of them.

This is like the "American love it or leave it" argument.  This attitude is a bully mentality.  There are
somethings that are just not right and should be beyond outside control.  This is one of them.


How is it bullying to say people have choice where to work or not and that you shouldn't work for people you don't agree with.  That is not a rational argument.

I think it's sad that this is happening, but I think a lot of company's will do this because of insurance reasons.  They think if you smoke you're going to have a lot of health issues so they don't want to pay the insurance for it. 
They do have every right to tell you what to do on company property, but once you leave the property you have a right to do what you want (legally). 

This is ridiculous.  I can understand smoking on the job site, but at home in your own leisure time.  That's just ridiculous.  If these people want to smoke on their own time, they should be allowed.  They could probably sue for wrongful termination if they do get fired?

i thought mandatory drug tests at work were already going too far. that's the kind of slippery slope that leads to this sorta nonsense. next it's gonna be, oh, you can't work here if you eat red meat, or, you can't work here if you have more than two drinks any given night, or if you watch too much stupid television. gah!

that's why i refuse to work anyplace where they do drug tests. and it's not cuz i wouldn't pass, either! cuz i would totally pass! er, maybe!

Let's face it....in this country, smokers keep losing their rights.  In many cities, you can't smoke in public places, and in some, even private clubs.  If this is a privately owned company, like it or not, the owner is free to hire/fire anyone he pleases.  There have been multiple cases fought in the courts and the company almost always wins.  Right or not, that's how the laws are in some states.


While its true that state labor laws differ, they are trumped by fed l.l. and I'll bet every state has laws on wrongfull termination.  Until smoking is made illegal, you simply can't punish some one for doing it.  You can restrict it and prohibit it in certain places, but you can't punish peopole for doing it.


On the other hand, since his is an employer, not an owner, people can choose to work for him or not.


Thats true, but once they have the job, and took it under a set of given circumstances, they can't be fired on a whim.  In the old days of "welfare capitalism" Henry Ford sent "social workers into employees' homes looking for booze, amoung other things.  While nicotene testing may not be as invasive, this is similar, and similarly reprehensible. 

I think this is crazy. I don't even agree with smoke-free work environments, where people aren't allowed to smoke anywhere (even outside) near the company property. Sure, it adds risk to the smokers' health which can cause health-care costs to go up... but most of these companies are jipping their employees out of adequate health benefits anyway.

I am personally convinced that exposure to second-hand smoke poses a very low cancer risk, and mst experts would concur; be that as it may, it is not fair to subject others to the discmfort caused by second-hand smoke. However, it is equally unfair to deny those who wish to engage in smoking the right to do so. 

How is it bullying to say people have choice where to work or not and that you shouldn't work for people you don't agree with.  That is not a rational argument.


The dictates of the owner cannot be allowed to extend beyond the boundaries of the business.
It's Labor History 101, and a dose of the the Social Contract coupled with a more than cursory reading
of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The dictates of the owner cannot be allowed to extend beyond the boundaries of the business.
It's Labor History 101, and a dose of the the Social Contract coupled with a more than cursory reading
of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.


History isn't a guide to what's legal, the social contract is just what people generally agree to, and you have to read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights very broadly to say that employers can't fire someone for that.  If that was in the Bill of Rights, why would we need labor laws in the first place?

History isn't a guide to what's legal, the social contract is just what people generally agree to, and you have to read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights very broadly to say that employers can't fire someone for that.  If that was in the Bill of Rights, why would we need labor laws in the first place?


It is impossible to understand the reasoning behind decisions contained in social contracts without knowledge
of the history of the people(groups and individuals) who formed those decisions. 

See, this my gripe with the Libertarians.  They always say it's none of the government's business what you do, but in this case your Libertarian would say, "they're a private company, they can test you for whatever they want, they can impose any strictures they want on your off-duty behavior, you don't like it, don't work for that company!" 
But what happens giant insurance companies, retail companies, or other big firms hold more sway over the individual's life than the government, and the government says the company is free to meddle in the individual's life, but the government must not meddle in the company's affairs?  You get de facto fascism.  This is the old Pullman company-town oppression leeching it's way back into our economy.  Libertarians are darlings of the Right because they're all about liberty for corporation and capital and the man or woman without money or property can go screw!
::)

See, this my gripe with the Libertarians.  They always say it's none of the government's business what you do, but in this case your Libertarian would say, "they're a private company, they can test you for whatever they want, they can impose any strictures they want on your off-duty behavior, you don't like it, don't work for that company!" 
But what happens giant insurance companies, retail companies, or other big firms hold more sway over the individual's life than the government, and the government says the company is free to meddle in the individual's life, but the government must not meddle in the company's affairs?  You get de facto fascism.  This is the old Pullman company-town oppression leeching it's way back into our economy.  Libertarians are darlings of the Right because they're all about liberty for corporation and capital and the man or woman without money or property can go screw!
::)


I went rambling about people who go on about rights of companies when they do not know anything at all
about Labor History, but it all came down to this

{ http://www.chipgrafx.com/blog/i/scream.jpg }

Of course if it is an addiction it is covered under the disabilities act and they have to hold your job
for you if you agree to rehab

I suspect they were probably smoking during the workday.  If you're 'addicted', I don't see how you could go an entire 8 or 9 hours without a hit.

I thought your country outlawed slavery in the 1860s. You can't fire someone for smoking a cigarette in their own home. As far as I'm aware, cigarette smoking is still legal. He might as well fire people for having sex with their spouses. Idiot. One worker has to stand up against this joker and it'll be over. No one has the right to treat people this way. Just what are Americans dying in Iraq for, anyway, to let little Hitlers like this bloke bully his workers?

C'mon, slavery and Holocaust comparisons are a little much, don't you think?

Of course, there are certain occupational safety concerns.  You don't want your municipal bus drivers or airline pilots sharing a pitcher of Martinis before clocking in!
:o

C'mon, slavery and Holocaust comparisons are a little much, don't you think?


When employers think they can tell their staff what they can and can't do when they're not at work or representing their company in public, how far away from slavery is it? The Hitler reference was merely the use of a historical despot as an adjective. It had nothing to do with the Holocaust. :) Besides which, hyperbole is fun.

When employers think they can tell their staff what they can and can't do when they're not at work or representing their company in public, how far away from slavery is it? The Hitler reference was merely the use of a historical despot as an adjective. It had nothing to do with the Holocaust. :) Besides which, hyperbole is fun.


Frankly, I'm not sure I wouldn't decline to hire people who engaged in certain technically legal things in their private life.

That may be so, but only if it affected one's performance in the workplace or negatively affected the business' public reputation. I can't see how smoking a cigarette could do this.

But at a company benefits meeting two years ago, the company president announced, "As of January 1st, 2005, anyone that has nicotine in their body will be fired,” Anita remembers. “And we sat there in awe. And I spoke out at that time. ‘You can't do that to us’ And then he said, ‘Yes, I can.’ I said, ‘That's not legal.’ And he came back with, ‘Yes, it is.’”

And it was legal: in Michigan, there’s no law that prevents a boss from firing people virtually at will. At Weyco, that meant no smoking at work, no smoking at home, no smoking period.
Next thing you know, this creep is going to be lurking around his employees' houses at night, peeping through their bedroom windows to make sure they're not engaging in any "deviant" behavior.

(Monday morning, 8 AM:)

Boss: "Good morning, Tom, can I see you in my office?"
Employee: "Sure, Mr. Jenkins...what's going on?"
Boss: "Well, Tom...the other night I just happened to be in the neighborhood, and with my thermal imaging camera I could clearly see you and your wife having sexual intercourse in the...what do they call it...the 'doggystyle' position?"
Employee: (Gulp) "Yes...?"
Boss: "Well, Tom, if you look at page 37 of your employee handbook it clearly states that any form of sexual intercourse other than in the 'missionary' position is considered 'unnatural' and can be considered grounds for termination."
Employee: "But...I..."
Boss: "Look, Tom...Weyco is a FAMILY-oriented corporation, and we can't have perverts like you going around spoiling our good name! I'm afraid we're going to have to let you go."

That Weyco guy is a perfect candidate to work in the Bush Administration! He'd fit right in!

Whose f'n business is it that one smokes on their leisure time anyway!

Big Brother's watching...

I firmly believe a person has a right to live their life as they see fit when they are off the clock.

I understand the reasoning in that the man is trying to keep health insurance costs down for his company, but heavily disagree with his disturbingly controlling and intrusive policy.

Unfortunately, affected employees have no legal recourse.  Laws would have to be changed.  People don't seem to have enough energy to bring about change.  People are too caught-up just trying to survive in today's society to fight yet another fight.

The simplest solution is for people to not work for these types of companies.

                                                        America's going to hell in a handbasket.

I went rambling about people who go on about rights of companies when they do not know anything at all
about Labor History, but it all came down to this

{ http://www.chipgrafx.com/blog/i/scream.jpg }


It's always a problem when people confuse what they think their rights should be with what their rights actually are.

It's always a problem when people confuse what they think their rights should be with what their rights actually are.


Exactly, as well as having the guts to fight for the rights they are denied.

Rosa Parks RIP

Exactly, as well as having the guts to fight for the rights they are denied.

Rosa Parks RIP


Exactly.