How Much Say Should Your Employer Have Over You?

[Annie]

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/003657.php

When Corporations Go Insane, Government Will Follow
Normally I don't have a tremendous amount of sympathy for smokers. I used to smoke cigarettes for several years and gave it up when I got engaged to the First Mate (although I wasn't much of a nicotine addict -- I'd go through one or two packs a month on average). I still smoke an occasional cigar. Even when I smoked, I considered it a silly, self-destructive habit.

However, it remains a fully legal self-destructive habit, and as long as people smoke in their own space and don't toss their refuse all over the place, I have no issue with silly choices. The BBC reports that a Michigan health-care company feels otherwise and wants to not only ban smoking from its premises, but require that its employees do not smoke anywhere else either:

Four workers in the United States have been sacked after refusing to take a test to determine if they were smokers. They were employees of Michigan-based healthcare firm Weyco, which introduced a policy banning its staff from smoking - even away from the workplace. ...
The firm says that, as its business is to help other firms save money and improve employee health through its benefit plans, it is only natural it should take a lead on the issue.

"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," said Weyco President Howard Weyers, in a message on its website.


Weyers gives new meaning to the phrase dictatorial management style. Workers owe their employers their work and loyalty during working hours, and if Weyco doesn't want people smoking on company property inside or outside, that's certainly their business. However, forcing employees to take urine tests to determine if they've engaged in essentially lawful activities anywhere and on their own time goes far beyond reasonableness or even sanity.

CQ readers may well ask, "Where does this intrusive, nanny-office mindset end?" It doesn't end with smoking; Weyco also wants to force its employees to change their eating and exercise habits as well. They claim that smoking and obesity costs them extra money in health-care coverage, and if employees want those benefits -- a reasonable expectation given Weyco's business -- then Weyco employees need to bend to Weyer's demands.

Besides being a warning to avoid doing any kind of business with Way-Out Weyers, this should serve as an example of the same kind of treatment we can expect to get from a government-run healthcare system. Ted Kennedy wants the federal government to provide health insurance to everyone, and you can bet your last Krispy Kreme donut that once it happens, we will find all sorts of restrictions imposed on us for our own good. Congress will get pressure to put taxes on "bad" food in order to drive up its costs. Food-industry corporations will get sued into oblivion, a possibility even now. Government will intrude further and further into our lives, reducing our choices and making us little more than children, reliant on the nanny-state for even our most basic decisions.

Weyers and Weyco need to get a life, and the rest of us need to stay wary of those who profess a need to assist us by taking our choices away -- even the silly ones.

Posted by Captain Ed at January 27, 2005 12:32 PM

 

[Merlin1047]

Seems that some companies are unable to distinguish the status of an employee from that of a slave.

I hope someone sues their stupid socks off. Even though I don't smoke, if I worked for these jerks I'd buy a carton of cigarettes, light them and leave them lying about all over the building.

 

[pegwinn]

Seems that some companies are unable to distinguish the status of an employee from that of a slave.

I hope someone sues their stupid socks off. Even though I don't smoke, if I worked for these jerks I'd buy a carton of cigarettes, light them and leave them lying about all over the building.

Won't work. No constitutional right to smoke. What the article doesn't mention is that Weyco gave a fifteen month notice and footed the bill for anyone who wanted to quit.

This is about lowering the cost of health insurance by the group.

The employer exercised his right to lower the cost of doing business (and IMO was pretty sane in the way he did it) and the four employees exercised thier right not to work there since they didn't like the conditions.

*edited to add the below*

Saturday, January 8, 2005



Firing Smokers Is Wrong Way to Curb Health Costs

Using tobacco becomes a firing offense at one Okemos company

The Detroit News

An Okemos company that has snuffed out smokers' jobs to curb health care costs has taken a radical step toward trying to reduce one of businesses' biggest expenditures. Unfortunately, it has gone too far.

Weyco Inc., a medical-benefits administration company, no longer will employ anyone who smokes -- including those who light up during their time off from work. Four employees resigned at the end of December because they refused to quit smoking.

Last week, the remaining 200 employees all were tested for tobacco use and more could find their way to the unemployment line because they're addicted to nicotine. The company no longer will hire anyone who uses any form of tobacco.

Howard Weyers, president of the company, said his decision goes beyond the bottom line. He refused to disclose how much money he'd save by dismissing tobacco users from the ranks, but said taking such drastic action was needed because increasing health care costs were choking his business. That may be true, but discriminating against a class of people for engaging in something that's legal is wrong. There are ways to cut costs that don't infringe on people's personal lives. The company easily could have made smokers' health care costs too expensive to continue the habit. Weyers said he didn't think that was a viable solution.

Weyco's employees knew the change was coming. Michigan does not have strict smokers' rights laws so the company's mandate is legal. The company will continue to employ one smoker in Illinois, which has laws prohibiting employers from discriminating against smokers.

In 2003, Weyco employees were told they'd have to stop smoking and using other tobacco products or they'd lose their jobs. Smoking was banned completely from the company's property and new hires were tested for tobacco use.

The company also began a testing program. Employees who tested negative for tobacco use didn't have to pay a monthly fee of $50. Those who tested positive had to pay the $50 if they didn't agree to go to smoking cessation classes.

Weyers said the breath tests that are used don't register second-hand smoke so those who have friends or relatives who light up won't be forced out. Anyone who tests positive will have to take additional tests to prove they don't smoke.

All this is too much. Will the company next target overweight workers? Obesity is at least as big a health threat as smoking and also adds health care costs that the company and others have to absorb. Will the overweight be forced out? Weyers says no, but the slope on which he's standing is slippery.

Weyco has a lifestyle coach and other incentives for living a healthy lifestyle. That's a preferable manner in which to deal with bad habits. Trying to control people's lives outside of the office is not.

source

 

[Annie]

Won't work. No constitutional right to smoke. What the article doesn't mention is that Weyco gave a fifteen month notice and footed the bill for anyone who wanted to quit.

This is about lowering the cost of health insurance by the group.

The employer exercised his right to lower the cost of doing business (and IMO was pretty sane in the way he did it) and the four employees exercised thier right not to work there since they didn't like the conditions.

*edited to add the below*

Saturday, January 8, 2005



Firing Smokers Is Wrong Way to Curb Health Costs

Using tobacco becomes a firing offense at one Okemos company

The Detroit News

An Okemos company that has snuffed out smokers' jobs to curb health care costs has taken a radical step toward trying to reduce one of businesses' biggest expenditures. Unfortunately, it has gone too far.

Weyco Inc., a medical-benefits administration company, no longer will employ anyone who smokes -- including those who light up during their time off from work. Four employees resigned at the end of December because they refused to quit smoking.

Last week, the remaining 200 employees all were tested for tobacco use and more could find their way to the unemployment line because they're addicted to nicotine. The company no longer will hire anyone who uses any form of tobacco.

Howard Weyers, president of the company, said his decision goes beyond the bottom line. He refused to disclose how much money he'd save by dismissing tobacco users from the ranks, but said taking such drastic action was needed because increasing health care costs were choking his business. That may be true, but discriminating against a class of people for engaging in something that's legal is wrong. There are ways to cut costs that don't infringe on people's personal lives. The company easily could have made smokers' health care costs too expensive to continue the habit. Weyers said he didn't think that was a viable solution.

Weyco's employees knew the change was coming. Michigan does not have strict smokers' rights laws so the company's mandate is legal. The company will continue to employ one smoker in Illinois, which has laws prohibiting employers from discriminating against smokers.

In 2003, Weyco employees were told they'd have to stop smoking and using other tobacco products or they'd lose their jobs. Smoking was banned completely from the company's property and new hires were tested for tobacco use.

The company also began a testing program. Employees who tested negative for tobacco use didn't have to pay a monthly fee of $50. Those who tested positive had to pay the $50 if they didn't agree to go to smoking cessation classes.

Weyers said the breath tests that are used don't register second-hand smoke so those who have friends or relatives who light up won't be forced out. Anyone who tests positive will have to take additional tests to prove they don't smoke.

All this is too much. Will the company next target overweight workers? Obesity is at least as big a health threat as smoking and also adds health care costs that the company and others have to absorb. Will the overweight be forced out? Weyers says no, but the slope on which he's standing is slippery.

Weyco has a lifestyle coach and other incentives for living a healthy lifestyle. That's a preferable manner in which to deal with bad habits. Trying to control people's lives outside of the office is not.

source

So they can also forbid fast food? Driving too fast? Where does it stop?

 

[dilloduck]

So they can also forbid fast food? Driving too fast? Where does it stop?

until Jesus is the only employee ??

 

[Annie]

until Jesus is the only employee ??

This kind of control strikes me as too much. Forbidding smoking at work, out the door, in their parking lot...ok. What you do at home? No.

 

[Merlin1047]

Won't work. No constitutional right to smoke. What the article doesn't mention is that Weyco gave a fifteen month notice and footed the bill for anyone who wanted to quit.

Civil lawsuits often have absolutely nothing to do with constitutional issues.

This is about more than lowering costs. This is about the difference between being employed by a company as opposed to being owned by one.

 

[pegwinn]

So they can also forbid fast food? Driving too fast? Where does it stop?

Yup. Sux don't it. Problem is that health costs are not going down anytime soon. Most health care insurance carried by employers is group policies based on group dynamics (according to my neighbor the ins sales guru )

Unhealthy acts cost money and the average idiot doesn't want to foot the bill. If I am paying the tab, I want to have some control over the things that are raising my costs.

Finally, this is nothing new. The military has been doing it forever.

Oh, about the driving thing..... nah, but the local cops might have an issue with you and the new mustang you got :rotflmao:

 

[pegwinn]

Civil lawsuits often have absolutely nothing to do with constitutional issues.

This is about more than lowering costs. This is about the difference between being employed by a company as opposed to being owned by one.

I still think they'd win a civil suit. There is no basis to demonstrate that they harmed any employee. I realize that not all juries are smart, but I don't think they would kill a company for this.

Owned by the company is way back in the "company store" days. Then you had zero options. Now you can simply quit and find another job.

 

[Annie]

Yup. Sux don't it. Problem is that health costs are not going down anytime soon. Most health care insurance carried by employers is group policies based on group dynamics (according to my neighbor the ins sales guru )

Unhealthy acts cost money and the average idiot doesn't want to foot the bill. If I am paying the tab, I want to have some control over the things that are raising my costs.

Finally, this is nothing new. The military has been doing it forever.

Oh, about the driving thing..... nah, but the local cops might have an issue with you and the new mustang you got :rotflmao:

Well, we'll respectfully disagree. Don't think an employer should have this much control. If they do, what the government does won't matter.

 

[pegwinn]

Well, we'll respectfully disagree. Don't think an employer should have this much control. If they do, what the government does won't matter.

Fair enough. For my part I don't sweat it. Because out of my short life, I've only had the option of quitting since I retired (less than 24 mo). So, in my mind, the trump is still with me. If my current boss is an ass, I simply give two weeks notice and move on.

 

[Mr. P]

Where ya guys been? Ted Turner did this years ago at CNN...

Now, I don't like it, but then I don't have to work for someone with this sort of policy either..I have to say I support the employers' right to set company policy here, and your right not to apply..

 

[Annie]

Fair enough. For my part I don't sweat it. Because out of my short life, I've only had the option of quitting since I retired (less than 24 mo). So, in my mind, the trump is still with me. If my current boss is an ass, I simply give two weeks notice and move on.

Oh I agree, I'd not want to work for an employer that was setting those kinds of controls. But without some limits, as you say many would start doing so, then what? In the long run, I just think a very bad idea.

 

[GWBfan]

I HATE smoking, absolutely loathe it. Used to smoke myself and quit 10 years ago. And as everyone knows, a smoker who has been able to quit for 10 years normally has an obnoxiously LOUD voice VS someone who has never smoked. Hey, we're ENTITLED!. Here's mine:
I do not want to smell cigarette smoke anywhere or at any time. I'm asthmatic now due to the few years I did smoke. My family still smokes and they receive NO support from me. If it were illegalized or taxed beyond belief I'd vote YES in a N.Y. second!! Let's have smoking colonies ( a la
Biodome! HA!) for those who can't quit and let them out for regular family visits..Eh?
SNUFF that nasty thang!

 

[dmp]

Nobody has the right to work anywhere they please.

 

[GWBfan]

Well, there you have it my friend!!

 

[freeandfun1]

Won't work. No constitutional right to smoke. What the article doesn't mention is that Weyco gave a fifteen month notice and footed the bill for anyone who wanted to quit.

This is about lowering the cost of health insurance by the group.

The employer exercised his right to lower the cost of doing business (and IMO was pretty sane in the way he did it) and the four employees exercised thier right not to work there since they didn't like the conditions.

*edited to add the below*

Saturday, January 8, 2005



Firing Smokers Is Wrong Way to Curb Health Costs

Using tobacco becomes a firing offense at one Okemos company

The Detroit News

An Okemos company that has snuffed out smokers' jobs to curb health care costs has taken a radical step toward trying to reduce one of businesses' biggest expenditures. Unfortunately, it has gone too far.

Weyco Inc., a medical-benefits administration company, no longer will employ anyone who smokes -- including those who light up during their time off from work. Four employees resigned at the end of December because they refused to quit smoking.

Last week, the remaining 200 employees all were tested for tobacco use and more could find their way to the unemployment line because they're addicted to nicotine. The company no longer will hire anyone who uses any form of tobacco.

Howard Weyers, president of the company, said his decision goes beyond the bottom line. He refused to disclose how much money he'd save by dismissing tobacco users from the ranks, but said taking such drastic action was needed because increasing health care costs were choking his business. That may be true, but discriminating against a class of people for engaging in something that's legal is wrong. There are ways to cut costs that don't infringe on people's personal lives. The company easily could have made smokers' health care costs too expensive to continue the habit. Weyers said he didn't think that was a viable solution.

Weyco's employees knew the change was coming. Michigan does not have strict smokers' rights laws so the company's mandate is legal. The company will continue to employ one smoker in Illinois, which has laws prohibiting employers from discriminating against smokers.

In 2003, Weyco employees were told they'd have to stop smoking and using other tobacco products or they'd lose their jobs. Smoking was banned completely from the company's property and new hires were tested for tobacco use.

The company also began a testing program. Employees who tested negative for tobacco use didn't have to pay a monthly fee of $50. Those who tested positive had to pay the $50 if they didn't agree to go to smoking cessation classes.

Weyers said the breath tests that are used don't register second-hand smoke so those who have friends or relatives who light up won't be forced out. Anyone who tests positive will have to take additional tests to prove they don't smoke.

All this is too much. Will the company next target overweight workers? Obesity is at least as big a health threat as smoking and also adds health care costs that the company and others have to absorb. Will the overweight be forced out? Weyers says no, but the slope on which he's standing is slippery.

Weyco has a lifestyle coach and other incentives for living a healthy lifestyle. That's a preferable manner in which to deal with bad habits. Trying to control people's lives outside of the office is not.

source

If the cost of healthcare is the issue, just tell smokers they won't be covered or that the COMPANY will not pay their premiums. It's that simple. I provide insurance for my employees and we have never been asked who smokes and who doesn't. The only time smoking comes up is if we are looking to insure under "keyman" insurance for $500,000 or more. But in that case, the money goes to the company, not the employee's heirs.

 

[Annie]

From today's WSJ, wanna bet? If the one stands, the rest follows:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006218

FIT TO WORK: Weyco, a medical-benefits administrator based in Okemos, Mich., fired four employees this week after they refused to take a test to prove they were not smokers. A Jan. 1 company policy bans puffing both in and outside the workplace. "I don't want to pay for the results of smoking," Weyco founder Howard Weyers was quoted saying on the Jan. 25 Web site of Lansing's WRAL-TV. Next on Weyco's list: overeaters. But they may prove a more difficult target than smokers. The company can tell fat employees to slim down, but it can't try to save money on health care by firing them. According to a Weyco press release cited by WRAL.com yesterday: "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."

 

[CSM]

From today's WSJ, wanna bet? If the one stands, the rest follows:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006218

Anyone with half a brain could see this coming. Under the guise of lowering health care costs, an employer is going to dictate lifestyles. Obesity, AIDS, alcoholism...safe sex, smoke detectors, type of vehicle (no SUVs in my parking lot!), hobbies (skydiving anyone?) and of course firearms (WHAT???? YOU OWN A GUN??? YOU ARE FIRED!) Once again we are faced with the question of individual rights vs. the common good.

 

[Annie]

Anyone with half a brain could see this coming. Under the guise of lowering health care costs, an employer is going to dictate lifestyles. Obesity, AIDS, alcoholism...safe se*, smoke detectors, type of vehicle (no SUVs in my parking lot!), hobbies (skydiving anyone?) and of course firearms (WHAT???? YOU OWN A GU*??? YOU ARE FIRED!) Once again we are faced with the question of individual rights vs. the common good.

Exactly. A few posts back someone brought up 'this used to be done' perhaps, I guess that is what made unions so popular for decades. Then employers 'got it.' The tide may be turning again.

(At school, filters. Some words set off 'form data refused.)