Business and your private life?

[kcantankerous]

I saw a special on 60 minutes or dateline, about a business owner who put out a memo that all employees who smoke after 15 weeks or so will be terminated from the job. Needless to say 3 woman were fired after not complying to the new rules. Personally I don't see a problem with setting the rules if your business is at risk. In this case the owner wanted to lower the cost of health care, since smokers have a higher chance of getting sick. What are yalls thoughts about this and other situations.

 

[amk714]

I'm not a smoker, and I don't like the habit, but what you described, an owner forcing people to not smoke or get fired just to save on health care spending, sounds very wrong to me, and may even be illegal. Do you know of a link to the story you saw? I'd like to know more about this.

 

[kcantankerous]

Heres a link.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/GiveMeABreak/story?id=650390&page=1

I kinda agree with it since he is the reason the company is owned and founded by him. Plus health care cost are quite expensive.

 

[amk714]

Thank you, knogz. I just read it and I still don't agree with the employer's smoking policy, but apparently it's legal in the state the company's located in (for now). And just for the record, I don't usually agree with John Stossel, the ABC News commentator who wrote that article, but that has nothing to do with my opinion on the matter.

 

[kcantankerous]

You have a valid point my friend, but since I am an aspiring entreprenuer I see the dollars and cents aspect of what the "weyco" guy is trying to do. Although I think he is abit of a tyrant and I probably wouldnt ever work there. A police department, I forget where, instituted that same policy but since pulled it because they became understaffed.

 

[RobAce]

My problem with this is that it sets a very bad precedent.
Whats next? Employees that are deemed obese are forced to go on diets or be fired? Employees with MS or other diseases are forced to undergo treatments directed by their employers or be fired? Employees that want children can not get pregant without getting fired?
I find this to be a very disturbing trend. I can understand cutting health-care costs but for an employer to dictate how someone lives to me is going a bit to far. People complain about the government taking away civil liberties, what about employers, unions and the like. I wonder if the ACLU would take a case such as this or are they still too busy sueing people for having a "Halloween" and "Christmas" party at the local school.

Rob

 

[Ronley]

I really don’t like cigarette smoke, and I’d be perfectly happy with smoking banned except for in a few designated areas. That said, I think this is going too far. It is perfectly within his rights to demand that his employees not smoke at work, but I think it infringes on personal freedom to regulate what someone does away from work.

I’ve seen this in another fashion too; every job/internship I’ve applied for over the past few years, I’ve had to sign a form consenting to random drug testing. These forms only identify illegal drugs as a problem, but I think that’s probably cutting into personal freedom as well, especially since I’m not sure how many of the currently illegal drugs should actually be illegal.

 

[lk70]

The small privately owned, but nationally well-known company I work for has this policy. The thinking behind it is even stranger than lowering health care costs- the owner feels that people who smoke are stupid and she doesn't want anyone thinking she hires stupid people 🙂 Also, no tattoos allowed.

 

[amk714]

the owner feels that people who smoke are stupid and she doesn't want anyone thinking she hires stupid people 🙂 Also, no tattoos allowed.

That's bullshit. People smoke because they're addicted to nicotine. It's got nothing to do with intelligence. They should try to quit, but if they can't, no matter what they do, it's not their fault. It sounds like the owner herself is stupid.

And tattoos are fine as long as you're able to cover them up. 😀

 

[asutickler]

One of my former employers used to pay people to quit smoking... They'd give you a few hundred dollars if you could stop smoking at work for 6 straight weeks.


Of course, this was a relatively small business.

 

[giantfan121262]

One of my former employers used to pay people to quit smoking... They'd give you a few hundred dollars if you could stop smoking at work for 6 straight weeks.


Of course, this was a relatively small business.

That sounds like a much more sensible approach if you want to discourage smoking in the workplace. At least you are giving your employees a choice, and an incentive I might add. At least this approach gives the people freedom og choice and not threaten you with your job.

 

[ViperGTS]

Common sense needs to be used in a case like this. Banning smoking on premesis period, and not allowing 15 minute "smoke breaks" is the way I would go. You get a half hour or a one hour break for lunch, and that's it. I catch you outside smoking on my company's time, your ass, my office, now.

 

[isabeau]

i dont believe in smoking in public. i smoke but only at home, or on vacation at my hotel or whatever. i think employers have the right to dictate if smoking is allowed or not at work, but not at home. employers have absolutely no right to tell someone how to live while not at work. and Robace i agree with everything you said. and to call someone who smokes stupid gessh yes its a stupid habit, but an addiction. addictions arent stupid, only sad. i wish i could quit but not badly enough to actually do it.

isabeau

 

[sole seeker]

The small privately owned, but nationally well-known company I work for has this policy. The thinking behind it is even stranger than lowering health care costs- the owner feels that people who smoke are stupid and she doesn't want anyone thinking she hires stupid people.

Now that is stange!

Her next edict:
"From now on you may not drink vodka martinis at lunch - only whiskey. We'd rather have our customers know you're intoxicated, rather than think you're stupid."