Company is firing all of its smokers - whether they smoke at work or not

[episodic]

http://www.channelcincinnati.c...ws/4125477/detail.html


Quote: "A Michigan health care company has fired four of its employees for refusing to take a test to determine whether they smoke cigarettes."


I can understand the company owner's perspective here. ..

Thoughts?

 

[mcvickj]

This seems wrong on several levels. I can see the company telling the employees no more smoking during company time. But to fire them because they do it at home or off company time. That doesn't seem right.

 

[episodic]

As a company owner, should he not have the right to say that we are not going to pay the higher health care costs associated with those who smoke?

 

[Injury]

I'm on the fence on this one.

I completely understand the company, as I don't BELIEVE there is anything illegal about this, but I think that it's a sh!tty thing to do to employees to not consider what they are to the company. If they smoke and the results of a physical say they are in 100% perfect condition, then WTF.

 

[Slacker]

They should stop insuring smokers as well. <edit, assumed the company to be an insurance co.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: episodic
As a company owner, should he not have the right to say that we are not going to pay the higher health care costs associated with those who smoke?

I'd think there would be an issue with providing equal benefits to all staff.

 

[Red Dawn]

Make the smokers pay the difference in the premium.

 

[dabuddha]

Good for them. I think it's a great idea. But to keep the whiners at bay, perhaps they should tell the employees that if they are smokers, they will not get health care benefits or they will but with a much higher premium.

 

[Wanescotting]

So what about the employees that engage in unprotected sex? What about the employees that are obese?



Where would it stop?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: episodic
As a company owner, should he not have the right to say that we are not going to pay the higher health care costs associated with those who smoke?

I'd think there would be an issue with providing equal benefits to all staff.

That's his point - the only way for the owner to not pay the higher health care costs is by firing them.

 

[Uppsala9496]

This has class action lawsuit written all over it. You CAN NOT discriminate against someone for health reasons at a job unless the health issue prevents them from performing the job. So, terminating someone because they smoke and saying it has to do with higher health costs is illegal.
Sorry, have to fire you because you just came down with breast cancer and we can't afford the associated health costs. Yep, your fired too since you have a family history of heart disease. And you. You are fired because you just had a premature baby and that is going to cost us $100,000. Oh, and all you women are fired because you too might get pregnant and have premy babies.........
And no, I am not a smoker. Personally I find it revolting, but to blatantly discriminate against a class of people like that is beyond illegal. "At will" state or not!

 

[Ausm]

That is ridiculous! They will be able to sue the company quaranteed!


Ausm

 

[episodic]

Most states have 'at will employment' you can fire a person for any reason at all. Last I checked, smokers are not a federally protected group.

 

[Tbirdkid]

no but what you can do is not pay for their health care anymore if they do smoke. firing is wrong.... but making them pay for their own health care isnt.

 

[moshquerade]

the lawyers are gonna be all over this one

 

[Wanescotting]

Originally posted by: episodic
Most states have 'at will employment' you can fire a person for any reason at all. Last I checked, smokers are not a federally protected group.

That may be, but people will think twice before they apply for a job with this company. They are going to cut thier nose off to spite thier face...........

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Wanescotting

Originally posted by: episodic
Most states have 'at will employment' you can fire a person for any reason at all. Last I checked, smokers are not a federally protected group.

That may be, but people will think twice before they apply for a job with this company. They are going to cut thier nose off to spite thier face...........

nah, that's not the issue. this company would rather smokers not apply. and really most non-smokers aren't gonna care, it doesn't affect them.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: Uppsala9496
This has class action lawsuit written all over it. You CAN NOT discriminate against someone for health reasons at a job unless the health issue prevents them from performing the job. So, terminating someone because they smoke and saying it has to do with higher health costs is illegal.

The thing is that we already allow companies to hire and fire people over straight-up drug use, so this is only a very minor extension of that by moving from illegal drugs to something slightly more legal(but still about as dangerous). If it goes to court, I don't see it being an open-and-shut case at all.

 

[0roo0roo]

too far.

 

[EyeMWing]

Originally posted by: Wanescotting
So what about the employees that engage in unprotected sex? What about the employees that are obese?



Where would it stop?

I was on the fence - you made up my mind. :beer:2u.

 

[Wanescotting]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Wanescotting

Originally posted by: episodic
Most states have 'at will employment' you can fire a person for any reason at all. Last I checked, smokers are not a federally protected group.

That may be, but people will think twice before they apply for a job with this company. They are going to cut thier nose off to spite thier face...........

nah, that's not the issue. this company would rather smokers not apply. and really most non-smokers aren't gonna care, it doesn't affect them.

Um, I think you missed my point. I do not smoke, however, I would not apply to work at this company.

Why? What would keep them from firing obese employees? What would keep them from firing someone with an illness such as MS?

I would be worried that the company would find anonther reason to fire people, so that they did not have to pay higher premiums.

 

[Uppsala9496]

Even if it is not a protected working class, this can be considered discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1991 which includes additional remedies under Federal law needed to deter unlawful harassment and intentional discrimination in the workplace.
This is clearly intentional discrimination.

It is a violation of Civil Rights, and the employer did not show Good Faith. Wow, I hope my company does not provide employment practacies liability for this company.

 

[iamwiz82]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Wanescotting

Originally posted by: episodic
Most states have 'at will employment' you can fire a person for any reason at all. Last I checked, smokers are not a federally protected group.

That may be, but people will think twice before they apply for a job with this company. They are going to cut thier nose off to spite thier face...........

nah, that's not the issue. this company would rather smokers not apply. and really most non-smokers aren't gonna care, it doesn't affect them.

As was pointed out above, what will stop them from firing those who engage in other acts they deem as damgerous? Do you really think they will stop here, if they are allowed to get away with it?

 

[bleeb]

lawsuit baby

 

[TitanDiddly]

I was initially going to say that it's wrong, terrible, etc, but I can see their perspective. I don't think that firing them is the way to go, but perhaps as some other posters mentioned, higher premiums or no coverage, etc.