Reply With Quote
speaking of which, gotta hit the corner store.
Company Fires Smokers
Michigan Firm Won't Allow Smoking, Even On Employee's Own Time
POSTED: 5:53 pm EST January 24, 2005
UPDATED: 6:26 pm EST January 24, 2005
The KCRA ChannelLANSING, Mich. -- A Michigan health care company has fired four of its employees for refusing to take a test to determine whether they smoke cigarettes.
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.
The founder of Weyco Inc. said the company doesn't want to pay the higher health care costs associated with smoking.
I suppose alcohol drinkers and those whom are over-weight are next? Back down the road to prohibition...
How some people do forget or never took a history lesson.
Speaking of history lessons some may or may not know that the original Prohibition of the 1920's was in fact sponsored by corporations, in the background of course. This thinking was for the working person to produce more while on company time (i.e. not to come into work with a hangover). Of course it took the crash of Wall Street to make Big Business look like a bunch of idiots and eventually have the law removed. But, Big Business being back in the saddle once again, we are about to revisit the past. Forward to the past.
speaking of which, gotta hit the corner store.
thats ridiculous
it is an easy way for the company to save on healthcare costs.. smokers more than any group for the company in terms of healthcare costs and number of days missed from work...
remember, a company doesn't hire people just because they want to give people jobs..they hire people to make them money...if some people are losing them money, then they have a right/need/duty to fire them...
I think they should enact the same policy for those heffers who eat Twinkies and clog their arteries with that delicious creme filling.
This is the second day my son is home sick with the Flu. Should I check his backpack for tobacco?
I think they should enact the same policy for those heffers who eat Twinkies and clog their arteries with that delicious creme filling.
You laugh, but that is the direction we are headed. Personally, I don't mind, because I'd rather not subsidize other people's vices.
Here Here! Everyone knows those fat slobs are more healthy. Right Dan?I think they should enact the same policy for those heffers who eat Twinkies and clog their arteries with that delicious creme filling.
right, but the facts are, smoking has shown cause companies to pay more for insurance, lose money on unproductive sick employees, etc...
also, it is the companies choice to hire/fire who they want.. why can't a company choose who it wants to work for them?
you never know mom!This is the second day my son is home sick with the Flu. Should I check his backpack for tobacco?
People like Dan are the reason that we have all these wacky anti smoking laws in the first place and now he is surprised that companies are fireing people for smoking?
Haha.
Give it up.
Which side of the fence are you on?
dan: smokers are infringing on my right to breath fresh air...
gov: ok, we will ban them in public buildings
headline: workers fired for smoking
dan: this is wrong...those poor smokers!
While I agree that smoking is a bad habit and causes lots of problems - I have a problem with people being fired over it. It seems we could be headed into a future that would penalize employees for any number of health-related issues. As mentioned above, would overweight employees be next? If the trend continued - then only the "beautiful people" would have jobs! This sounds like a scene out of the movie "Demolition Man" - remember they outlawed anything that was bad for you - including the transfer of bodily fluids!
well, there aren't enough beautiful people in the world to run the world so the so called fat and ugly will have jobs too..
I can see the argument from a stand point of company paid life insurance, or prohibiting smoking in the offices/on the premises, but firing them all together...when they've already been employed there (I presume) for a while?
Now they can all get on unemployment and raise the company's rates that way. And there's a lawsuit in there somewhere, I'm sure...that's not going to be costly.
I didn't realize smoking had reached "Have you ever committed or been convicted of a felony" status yet....
it is not just life insurance, but regular everyday health insurance too. also, the company probablys figure the cost of all this litigation(if there is any) will still cost them far less than employing smokers.. i'm sure they've done their cost-benefit analysis!I can see the argument from a stand point of company paid life insurance, or prohibiting smoking in the offices/on the premises, but firing them all together...when they've already been employed there (I presume) for a while?
Now they can all get on unemployment and raise the company's rates that way. And there's a lawsuit in there somewhere, I'm sure...that's not going to be costly.
I didn't realize smoking had reached "Have you ever committed or been convicted of a felony" status yet....
bottom line... if something detracts from the company it should be done away with...
I don't know.....genetics plays a huge role in someone's health, whether they smoke or not. I know people who smoke like a chimney and never miss work due to illness, and those who don't who are constantly sick. You don't have to smoke to get cancer or heart disease or have respiratory problems...it doesn't help, but it's not a given.
I wonder if there are actual studies comparing the health related issues and the costs of people who smoke v. people who are obese. Both of which could be categorized as "voluntary" conditions. I can't possibly see how you can ban one and not the other.
One way or the other, I smell a big fat lawsuit coming.
Nahhhhh...it'll be settled out-of-court in smoke-filled back rooms...
That was really baaaaaaaah'd, travis.
If the problem is health insurance costs, then any changes should begin with the providers.
Us fatties are next!
Are they self-insured though? That might make the difference.
I think a company has every right to limit it's exposure to exorbitant insurance premiums by hiring only people who engage in healthy lifestyles.
But what if these healthy people suck at their jobs, thus costing the company more money to fix their mistakes?????
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
