You asked, you got... smokers fired, now the...

[whottt]

declaration of independence doesn't mean anything.

I think that sums up what you feel.... from an ideological perspective...

Thanks for my new Sig

Luckily enough it was still valid enough to be the basis for the civil rights movement...not to mention our charter do ent as a sovereign nation...

Unlike you, the rest of us aren't still singing God save the Queen...

Edit: And no doubt those founding fathers were all fat, smoking, drinkers...the three targets of weyco...

Pick your poison.

[whottt]

Let me introduce you to the U. S. Cons ution instead:

The First Amendment - Right of Association (including employer/employee association)


The Fourth Amendment - The Right to dispose of your private property in whatever manner you see fit. (including capital assets, salary money for employees, etc...you get the picture.)

That's great, if you can prove Weyco.inc is still individually owned and operated. I don't think it is.

Incorporated being the key phrase...therefore is does not have the rights granted by the cons ution. It has an entirely different set of rights and regulations that govern corporations...so you attributing to it, rights granted to US citizens by the cons ution, may sound good? It's null and void.

Corporations were one of the things our forefathers were rebelling against and were only allowed to exist in this country so long as their existence benefitted the "people" of this country.

Businesses do not have the same rights as US citizens.

Then, there's the kickers --

The Ninth Amendment - Nothing the Cons ution says can be construed to deny individual rights to anyone. (including such constructs that say a person has a right to be employed over the rights of an individual to employ that person...personal property rights trump some nebulous employment right that's been cut from whole cloth and which can't be found anywhere in the U.S. Cons ution)

This company has contracts with publicly owned hospitals, it is a corporation, it does not have the right to exist and discriminate against US citizens without good reasons...

and seeing as how they could just pass the increased cost of health insurance for smokers, to their smoking employees...this is a clear bias and clear case of discrimination and it will be a travesty if allowed to stand.

And the Tenth Amendment - If we don't say it in here then the States and the People have the right to do whatever they deem appropriate including private discrimination for whatever reason, purple hair or black skin.

People do, corporations don't.

The right to a job. The right to not be offended. The right to not be discriminated against by anyone for any reason, other than the government or it's agents. And, hundreds or thousands of other assumed rights that never existed...

Those are actually good points...but that doesn't change the ideals upon which this country was founded...and that a business, a coporation is now treading upon select individuals unfairly and with bias.

The job of the government is to protect US citizens, not corporations...

But for judicial fiat, discrimination would not be illegal.

Maybe not technically in this case, it'd just be an unamerican, communist activity. That takes a big dump on everything this country was founded upon.

[whottt]

okay, here is the article.. they aren't firing fatties, just offering ways to help them be healthier...

Health Care Company That Fired Smokers Also Targeting Fat. Weyers Won't Fire Employees For Obesity
POSTED: 9:20 am CST January 27, 2005

A Michigan health care company that fired four employees for smoking is also targeting fat.

Howard Weyers, the founder of Weyco Inc., said he wants to tell fat workers to lose weight or else, Reuters reported.

Weyers brought in weight experts to speak with employees, according to Reuters. The company also offers employees a $35 monthly incentive for joining a health club and $65 for meeting fitness goals.

But the company isn't planning to fire employees for unhealthy lifestyle choices, according to a Weyco news release.

"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. But there's no right to indulge in tobacco," the news release said.

Four Weyco employees were fired after the company enacted a new policy this month, allowing workers to be fired if they smoke, even if the smoking takes place after hours or at home.

So basically you guys are in support of company breaking federal law when you get their back on firing the fatties...I'm glad the US govt still has more credibility then some of it's misguided citizenry.

[whottt]

By the way...it's a scientiffic fact that smokers on average have better memories and cognitive abilities than non-smokers...they also tend to be less prone to stress...

Something to remember when looking down your nose...but then again...you probably won't remember it as well as a smoker will...

[whottt]

By the way...it's a scientiffic fact that smokers on average have better memories and cognitive abilities than non-smokers...

And if you doubt this then please take note of the dumbass founder of Weyco.inc...obviously a non-smoker...

Yet too stupid to realize how he has probably caused tremendous financial issues for his own company...

No doubt his discrimanatory practices and absolute trouncing of the civil liberties of his employess wil cost him a few of his government contracts...

Not to mention the fact that most Americans are overweight...and since smokers tend to not be overweight...I'd say he's managed to alienate a good portion of the American Public...and he's going after people who drink next...by the time he's done only about 10% of the US population won't think he's an asshole.

I'd imagine most CEO's are either fat or hyper compe ive personalities prone to smoking, or heavy stress drinkers...I don't think he'll have those guys beating down his door for his services.

[Samurai Jane]

This is a health care company firing employees for unhealthy habits.. perhaps this also goes to company image, not just cost?

Kind of like a modeling agency not hiring ugly women...

[whottt]

This is a health care company firing employees for unhealthy habits.. perhaps this also goes to company image, not just cost?

Kind of like a modeling agency not hiring ugly women...

If these guys were models or selling fitness equipment I could understand that...but this is office staff and no one would have a clue what they looked like, what their private vices were, or what their potential health problems were, if this company wasn't broadcasting those things. Those employees being unhealthy wouldn't be a reflection of the company because by and large they wouldn't be in the public eye.

I could understand them discriminating if there were a legitimate reason for it...but projecting their future health condition, and using blanket stats for smokers, in no way proved whether or not those individuals were good at their jobs...and the higher insurance rates most certainly could have been passed on to those employees themselves...

A clear case of bias, discrimination, and there were absolutely no legitimate grounds(that they announced anyway) for firing those people and it was done because of the fascist tendencies of it's CEO.

What he did was ty, it was UnAmerican..and I hope Weyco pays for it dearly.

[Hook Dem]

In agreement with Whottt.

[Useruser666]

If the people who worked here are "Home healthcare workers" then I would understand.

[Samurai Jane]

If these guys were models or selling fitness equipment I could understand that...but this is office staff and no one would have a clue what they looked like, what their private vices were, or what their potential health problems were, if this company wasn't broadcasting those things. Those employees being unhealthy wouldn't be a reflection of the company because by and large they wouldn't be in the public eye.

I could understand them discriminating if there were a legitimate reason for it...but projecting their future health condition, and using blanket stats for smokers, in no way proved whether or not those individuals were good at their jobs...and the higher insurance rates most certainly could have been passed on to those employees themselves...

A clear case of bias, discrimination, and there were absolutely no legitimate grounds(that they announced anyway) for firing those people and it was done because of the fascist tendencies of it's CEO.

What he did was ty, it was UnAmerican..and I hope Weyco pays for it dearly.

Hey, I don't disagree with you.. I think it was pretty crappy too. I'm just trying to understand the situation a bit better.

[Guru of Nothing]

I'm just trying to understand the situation a bit better.

Wrong forum.

[Samurai Jane]

Wrong forum.

Eh??

[Yonivore]

That's great, if you can prove Weyco.inc is still individually owned and operated. I don't think it is.

Unless it is state-owned, there are individuals -- with individual's rights -- at the core of the company; be they stockholders or directors or whatever.

Incorporated being the key phrase...therefore is does not have the rights granted by the cons ution. It has an entirely different set of rights and regulations that govern corporations...so you attributing to it, rights granted to US citizens by the cons ution, may sound good? It's null and void.

Really, tell me where the cons utional rights of an individual are revoked simply because they incorporate. Point me to the statute, please.

Corporations were one of the things our forefathers were rebelling against and were only allowed to exist in this country so long as their existence benefitted the "people" of this country.

Really? Source that.

Businesses do not have the same rights as US citizens.

Business don't have any right -- because they don't need them. Their owners have all the same rights as you and I though.

This company has contracts with publicly owned hospitals, it is a corporation, it does not have the right to exist and discriminate against US citizens without good reasons...

I don't know about the "right to exist" but, as for discrimination -- I've already stated I believe companies with legal or contractual relationships with the federal goverment should be subject to the Civil Rights Act and its amendments (as well as any other federal non-discrimination statute or regulation or rule); you won't get an argument from me. Now, how far that extends to relationships between private (or publicly held companies) and state and local goverments depends on the various state laws, cons utions, and ordinances governing those en ies.

and seeing as how they could just pass the increased cost of health insurance for smokers, to their smoking employees...this is a clear bias and clear case of discrimination and it will be a travesty if allowed to stand.

So? smokers and over-eaters are not in a protected class defined by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any other legislation of which I'm aware. Discriminating against them for being fat and/or stinky, in this case, would be akin to discriminating against them for wearing bikini to work. All three conditions are a function of the personal choice of the smoker, eater, and bikini wearer.

Bias and discrimination get a bad rap here. They should only be scrutinized when the criteria against which the bias or discrimination is targeted is a condition beyond the control of the person such as -- race, ethnicity, sex, national origin, etc...

People do, corporations don't.

Corporations don't make employment decisions, people do.

Those are actually good points...but that doesn't change the ideals upon which this country was founded

What? Principles of personal responsibility and individual rights with limited government interference?

...and that a business, a coporation is now treading upon select individuals unfairly and with bias.

Once again, businesses and corporations are unable to tread given they have no feet or ability to tread...only people can tread on other people's rights and, in these cases, just as when you discriminate against one restaurant in favor of another, it is a matter of personal choice. I mean, really, doesn't the Chinese restaurant deserve your money as much as the KFC? Where's your sense of fairness?

The job of the government is to protect US citizens, not corporations...

The job of the government is to ensure all citizens are treated equally, that the U.S. Cons ution is the basis of our body of law, that our borders are secure, and to facilitate relationships with other governments. I'm sure I missed something...but protecting you individually isn't the function of government...at least not the federal government; it has something to do with the whole concept of "providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare" idea forwarded in our founding do ents.

Maybe not technically in this case, it'd just be an unamerican, communist activity. That takes a big dump on everything this country was founded upon.

I disagree...rule of law is paramount to emotions in this country. It is upholding the very ins utions upon which this country was founded to stick to the "technical" and not let the emotions of the day allow us to cir vent the Cons ution -- the whole unintended consequences thing, you know.

[Yonivore]

By the way...it's a scientiffic fact that smokers on average have better memories and cognitive abilities than non-smokers...they also tend to be less prone to stress...

It's probably because they don't live long enough to develop the usual diminished mental faculties of old age and, therefore, tilt the sample to lead you to believe they have better memories or are less prone to stress.

Something to remember when looking down your nose...but then again...you probably won't remember it as well as a smoker will...

Who's looking down their nose at smokers? I was one for 13 years. This is a discussion about employer/employee rights.

[Yonivore]

And if you doubt this then please take note of the dumbass founder of Weyco.inc...obviously a non-smoker...

Yet too stupid to realize how he has probably caused tremendous financial issues for his own company...

No doubt his discrimanatory practices and absolute trouncing of the civil liberties of his employess wil cost him a few of his government contracts...

Not to mention the fact that most Americans are overweight...and since smokers tend to not be overweight...I'd say he's managed to alienate a good portion of the American Public...and he's going after people who drink next...by the time he's done only about 10% of the US population won't think he's an asshole.

I'd imagine most CEO's are either fat or hyper compe ive personalities prone to smoking, or heavy stress drinkers...I don't think he'll have those guys beating down his door for his services.

I'm decided your too emotional about his issue to be objective. Where do you get that smokers have a right to smoke?

[JoeChalupa]

Well, don't they have a right to kill themselves at their own pace?

[Yonivore]

If these guys were models or selling fitness equipment I could understand that...but this is office staff and no one would have a clue what they looked like, what their private vices were, or what their potential health problems were, if this company wasn't broadcasting those things. Those employees being unhealthy wouldn't be a reflection of the company because by and large they wouldn't be in the public eye.

I could understand them discriminating if there were a legitimate reason for it...but projecting their future health condition, and using blanket stats for smokers, in no way proved whether or not those individuals were good at their jobs...and the higher insurance rates most certainly could have been passed on to those employees themselves...

A clear case of bias, discrimination, and there were absolutely no legitimate grounds(that they announced anyway) for firing those people and it was done because of the fascist tendencies of it's CEO.

What he did was ty, it was UnAmerican..and I hope Weyco pays for it dearly.

It's about the cost of doing business. And, further, you have the right not do business with him (those who free association nonsense in the Cons ution).

[Useruser666]

It would be in the cons ution, but somebody tore that piece off and rolled one.

[Yonivore]

Well, don't they have a right to kill themselves at their own pace?

Sure, but, it doesn't mean the company has to endure their slow suicide when they could be employing a healthier person.

[whottt]

Well, don't they have a right to kill themselves at their own pace?

Some of us do it one cig at a time, and some of us do it one Chalupa at a time .

There's nothing funnier than a bunch of people who sit on their butts(sic) all day posting on a message board, giving lectures on health..

Yoni, I'll be back later to respond...I, who have a job which requires me to work 7 days a week, and be on call 24 hours a day, and who have never called in sick once in 3 years and haven't had a vacation in 2 years, have to go do something job related. Rest assured, I have a lot more to say on this subject.



And I'm not particularly emotional about this subject since it really doesn't effect me...the main thing that it is getting my goat is that I've about had it with the condescending smugness of non-smokers, and they all need a big foot put up their collective ass.

[whottt]

PS...Hope the US military doesn't start using this practice of discriminating against smokers, or we won't have much of a military.

Remember as you wave your flag, that you are in favor of discrimantory policies, that would also penalize the majority of our men and women in uniform.

[whottt]

Be sure to remind him what he's fighting for:

[violentkitten]

the freedom to photoshop?

[Useruser666]

Whottt,

Are you saying it's wrong to fire someone because they smoke, or not hire a person because they smoke, or both?

[spurster]

They should go after the workers with families next. Not only do families mean more people to get sick and increase health care costs, but, instead of spending time with their families, these ingrates should be working harder to add to the CEO's paltry multi-million salary.

I know you meant that somewhat tongue-in-cheek. However, it really does boil down to the fact that private employers should be able to hire and fire at will for whatever damn reason they see fit and publicly-traded corporations should be able to hire and fire at the will of the stockholders.

Only Government employers (or people who would hope to enter into government contracts) should be held to any anti-discriminatory laws or policies.

Period.

I think we have found one reason why we need anti-discrimination laws.