If you smoke...

[BVS]

then you're fired!




Company fires employees for smoking test

January 24, 2005

LANSING, Mich. --Four employees of a health care company have been fired for refusing to take a test to determine whether they smoke cigarettes.

Weyco Inc., a health benefits administrator based in Okemos, Mich., adopted a policy Jan. 1 that allows employees to be fired if they smoke, even if the smoking happens after business hours or at home.

Company founder Howard Weyers has said the anti-smoking rule was designed to shield the firm from high health care costs. "I don't want to pay for the results of smoking," he said.

The rule led one employee to quit before the policy was adopted. Four others were fired when they balked at the smoking test.

Chief Financial Officer Gary Climes estimated that 18 to 20 of the company's 200 employers were smokers when the policy was announced in 2003. Of those, as many as 14 quit smoking before the policy went into effect. The company offered them help to kick the habit.

"That is absolutely a victory," Climes said.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...pany_fires_employees_for_smoking_test?mode=PF

 

[A_Wanderer]

Ridiculous, people should have the right to smoke ~ while emphysema is not a good way to die I do not think that this big brother prohibitive mentality is good. People should be free to make their own dumb choices.

 

[coemgen]

Yeah, that's just retarded. I agree with A.W. (Is this a first, my friend? )

 

[ImOuttaControl]

I think you two might have missed the point. The company simply doens't want to deal with high health care costs; and smokers are high risk.

'Company founder Howard Weyers has said the anti-smoking rule was designed to shield the firm from high health care costs. "I don't want to pay for the results of smoking," he said.'

I don't really care if people smoke(as long as I don't have to breathe it in.) I think that firing these people was a bit extreme...why not just take away their health care and let them pay for it on their own if they want to do something as unhealthy as smoking?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I think firing them is a little ridiculous. Can there be an acceptable ground by not giving smokers special privileges, such as smoke breaks, in addition to their other breaks? Would that be more acceptable?

 

[ILuvLarryMullen]

that's dumb. What's next, are they going to fire everyone who's fat cause they are afraid of medical costs? Why not stop there, let's give employees health exams before hiring them to make sure they don't have any other health problems like diabetes or a heart condition.

 

[ImOuttaControl]

that's dumb. What's next, are they going to fire everyone who's fat cause they are afraid of medical costs? Why not stop there, let's give employees health exams before hiring them to make sure they don't have any other health problems like diabetes or a heart condition.

If an employer wants to keep health care costs down, they have every right to have a physician decide if a person is a risk or not. Sorry to say, but obese people, people with high cholesterol, people who smoke raise the company health care costs for everyone else.

Maybe if people in at risk categories get hit in their wallet a bit, they might be persuaded to quit smoking or downing their big macs every day.

P.S. Every job I've ever had has required me to get a physical before being hired and recieving any health benefits.

 

[ImOuttaControl]

I think firing them is a little ridiculous. Can there be an acceptable ground by not giving smokers special privileges, such as smoke breaks, in addition to their other breaks? Would that be more acceptable?

Yes firing them was unacceptable. I think that if a company doesn't want to foot the bill for a smokers medical bills, then simply drop the workers company rated health care and make them go out and get it on their own.

 

[ILuvLarryMullen]

you're right, it's better to let them all die because they don't see a doctor until it's too late because they have to health insurance.

 

[ImOuttaControl]

you're right, it's better to let them all die because they don't see a doctor until it's too late because they have to health insurance.

Hey, if people eat crappy and get fat, smoke and get emphysema or do whatever bad thing, then they're responsible for their heath, not their employer.

People are in control of there own destiny when it comes to smoking, overeating..ect.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

ImOuttaControl, grant that I often agree with you, obesity is not always the result of overeating, and heart problems are often hereditary as well. There is a line between being fair with your employees and doing nothing for them, when everyone else is.

 

[ImOuttaControl]

ImOuttaControl, grant that I often agree with you, obesity is not always the result of overeating, and heart problems are often hereditary as well. There is a line between being fair with your employees and doing nothing for them, when everyone else is.

I look at it this way. My father is in charge of an insurance company for basically the state of MN, so I've been around the insurance/health care thing my whole life. When someone gets health insurance, they have to go through a physical examination to determine the risk level(smoking..ect) and therefore the cost of their healthcare. All I'm saying is that if people, particularily smokers in this case, should simply pay extra for their company healthcare.

I know obesity is often based on genetics, I was mainly using that as an example. But EVERYONE can change whether or not they smoke and become many times healthier by quitting. I don't think an employer should foot the bill for people who smoke and in the long run have health problems; because they do so willingly. (yes I know it's addictive, but everyone has the power to break that addiction)

 

[joyfulgirl]

If an employer wants to keep health care costs down, they have every right to have a physician decide if a person is a risk or not.

Which would lead to discrimination against people with HIV, for example.

 

[ILuvLarryMullen]

I look at it this way. My father is in charge of an insurance company for basically the state of MN, so I've been around the insurance/health care thing my whole life. When someone gets health insurance, they have to go through a physical examination to determine the risk level(smoking..ect) and therefore the cost of their healthcare. All I'm saying is that if people, particularily smokers in this case, should simply pay extra for their company healthcare.

This is reasonable to me (though I am for national health care), but to deny them health insurance all together (as what you said sounded like) or to fire them (as in the case of the article) is not.

 

[ImOuttaControl]

Which would lead to discrimination against people with HIV, for example.

So do we force companies to give health care to high risk individuals? I'm sorry, but the health insurance world already is highly discriminatory and it's perfectly legal. High risk people have to pay more, because the insurance companies have to pay more costs. If it got to that point where we force companies to give cheap health care to high risk individuals, most companies would quit offering it altogether and let people fend for their own healthcare. A lot of companies have already begun dropping health care for all their employees because costs are simply too high.

 

[ImOuttaControl]

This is reasonable to me (though I am for national health care), but to deny them health insurance all together (as what you said sounded like) or to fire them (as in the case of the article) is not.

I'm sorry if I was unclear, but I didn't mean they should be denied altogether. I meant that either they pay a higher amount to their company insurance or get dropped and have to go and get it on their own.

I'm totally against firing people because of their health issues, but I do believe companies can set limits on the health level their employees must be at in order to attain healthcare coverage.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Everyone is at some kind of risk for health problems, choices or not.
This is just some nice cover for discrimination.

 

[ahmedadam]

What will be next. This is like a facsism or how you say. It could be the people who drink alcohol next, or who make love without the condom, or who eat chocolate too much or who do not exercise in the company gym with the company teacher of gym for at least 30 minuets a day or the one who does not eat the company salad at the lunch time.

Or the one who won't take enough vacation, or the one who has too many vacations. Or the one who watches too much television,or the one who ridies a motorbicycle or the one who rollerskates or skateboards or she that likes to linedance or he that likes to use a parachute. All of these could be bad for the health.

This is scary of what is happenign to people's free.

America used to be land of free. Now it is land of bloody lawyers with no morals and who kiss the money as they put people in the metaforical chains.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Did you know 2/3 of the world's lawyers are in America?

True fact.

 

[nbcrusader]

Everyone is at some kind of risk for health problems, choices or not.
This is just some nice cover for discrimination.

It is not discrimination.

Smoking (1) is a personal choice and (2) has costs that affect more than just the individual.

 

[dandy]

two facts:

(1) tobacco is legal.
(2) there is no proof that smoking impairs most people's ability to perform their jobs well on a day-to-day basis (unless we're talking about athletes or astronauts or some other physically taxing profession).

perhaps smokers should be paying higher health insurance premiums, seeing that they regularly engage in high-risk behaviour that is most certainly detrimental to their health, but there's no way they should be denied employment simply because they smoke.

 

[ImOuttaControl]

It is not discrimination.

Smoking (1) is a personal choice and (2) has costs that affect more than just the individual.

Exactly! Some people are getting a little overdramatic about this. Smoking is a personal CHOICE and employers should be able to deny them company rated health care because of it--but firing them altogether is simply wrong.

 

[ImOuttaControl]

Everyone is at some kind of risk for health problems, choices or not.
This is just some nice cover for discrimination.

This thread is about SMOKING! You know nothing about the way the health insurance industry works if you think that healthy people are paying the same amount as people in higher risk categories.

 

[BVS]

It is not discrimination.

Smoking (1) is a personal choice and (2) has costs that affect more than just the individual.

So is overeating or eating unhealthy, and those who engage in extreme sports on the weekend but I don't see anything being done about these individuals.

Between a young person who smokes and a young person who's mountain biking every weekend who's the higher risk? The one mountain biking. You have much better chance at taking a fall and breaking several bones in your body than having any effects from smoking at age 28.

 

[nbcrusader]

Between a young person who smokes and a young person who's mountain biking every weekend who's the higher risk? The one mountain biking. You have much better chance at taking a fall and breaking several bones in your body than having any effects from smoking at age 28.

Sorry, but I don't agree with the conclusion here.

Every puff of a cigarette causes some damage, to the individual and to those around the individual. The damage is cumulative and lasting.

With mountain biking, you have positives (in the form of exercise) and occasional risks.

 

[BVS]

Sorry, but I don't agree with the conclusion here.

Every puff of a cigarette causes some damage, to the individual and to those around the individual. The damage is cumulative and lasting.

With mountain biking, you have positives (in the form of exercise) and occasional risks.

What I'm saying is that with a 28 year old employee the risk is much higher with the one who's putting his life on the line everyweekend do some extreme sport than it is with the smoker. But there's no compensation for this difference. Why not?

If we're going to make special compensation for smokers then maybe we just need to make them for everyone. Rate everyone individually and charge them according to lifestyle.

Why just smokers? Why not the obese? Why not the old? Why not those that lead very risky lifestyles outside of work?

 

[Keebler884]

They ARE also targeting overweight people

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.

The four employees were fired for refusing to take a test to determine whether they smoke. Weyers said the company doesn't want to pay the higher health care costs associated with smoking.

An official of the company -- which administers health benefits -- estimated that 18 to 20 of its 200 employees were smokers when the policy was first announced in 2003. As many as 14 of them quit smoking before the policy went into effect.

The company's Web site states:

Weyco Inc. is a non-smoking company that strongly supports its employees in living healthy lifestyles

 

[ImOuttaControl]

So is overeating or eating unhealthy, and those who engage in extreme sports on the weekend but I don't see anything being done about these individuals.

Between a young person who smokes and a young person who's mountain biking every weekend who's the higher risk? The one mountain biking. You have much better chance at taking a fall and breaking several bones in your body than having any effects from smoking at age 28.

There are some things that are unmeasurable, such as the extreme sports. Morbid obesity on the other hand is something that can be measured and most often change w/ lifestyle change or a physicians help. The reason I say "morbid obesity" is because I wouldn't classify regular "obese"--there isn't a decent way to measure whether or not a lot of people are obese. For example, I'm someone who works out daily, eats correctly all that--there isn't a whole lot of fat on me--but I still weigh about 200 pounds and I'm six feet. According to these "obesity scales," I'm overweight even though it wouldn't be possible for me to get down to the "healthy" weight of 175.

As for the biking..If someone gets injured, that's an accident. If someone get sick from smoking, that's 100% preventable. Also, if you look at the total amount it costs to treat people in extreme sports compared to people sick from smoking complications, I think we'd see just how much smoking is costing our society.

Besides, often times health insurance companies will deny people coverage already if they are in a high risk job, just like homeowners insurance goes up for many companies if a family decides to buy a trampoline. Healthcare is a business, and businesses will always deny the bad investment.

 

[BVS]

There are some things that are unmeasurable, such as the extreme sports. Morbid obesity on the other hand is something that can be measured and most often change w/ lifestyle change or a physicians help. The reason I say "morbid obesity" is because I wouldn't classify regular "obese"--there isn't a decent way to measure whether or not a lot of people are obese. For example, I'm someone who works out daily, eats correctly all that--there isn't a whole lot of fat on me--but I still weigh about 200 pounds and I'm six feet. According to these "obesity scales," I'm overweight even though it wouldn't be possible for me to get down to the "healthy" weight of 175.

As for the biking..If someone gets injured, that's an accident. If someone get sick from smoking, that's 100% preventable. Also, if you look at the total amount it costs to treat people in extreme sports compared to people sick from smoking complications, I think we'd see just how much smoking is costing our society.

Besides, often times health insurance companies will deny people coverage already if they are in a high risk job, just like homeowners insurance goes up for many companies if a family decides to buy a trampoline. Healthcare is a business, and businesses will always deny the bad investment.

So then are you for charging more for the morbidly obese?

 

[melon]

1) Health care is not a privilege. It's a right. This is why it should be nationalized, because private insurers aren't interested in the health and well-being of people. They're just interested in a profitable fiscal quarter. Well, fuck 'em, that's what I say. Besides, Dubya thinks our unemployment figures don't count the self-employed. All the more reason for needing national health care, especially if our economy is shifting to contract/freelance labor.

2) Tobacco should be banned. We ban other substances for being only a fraction of its danger. Tobacco is highly addictive and kills people. Now how is that different from any myriad of drugs (i.e., Vioxx) that are banned on a regular basis?

Melon