Bill would save smokers' jobs at ban on smokers

[MDM4AU 336]

Bill would save smokers' jobs at ban on smokers

P.J HUFFSTUTTER

The Los Angeles Times

CHICAGO - A Michigan state lawmaker said Monday that he planned to introduce a bill to bar companies from firing employees for smoking on their own time.

The proposed so-called "lifestyle legislation" comes in response to a policy at Weyco Inc., an employee benefits company in Okemos, Mich. On Jan. 1, Weyco began randomly testing its 200 workers for nicotine use, saying it would fire those who tested positive and refused to quit smoking.

So far, four Weyco employees have said they were let go.

"Two of those employees are my constituents, and they came to me asking for help," said Sen. Virg Bernero, a Democrat from Lansing who plans to introduce his bill in the next three weeks.

If passed, Michigan would become one of the few states with a law expressly stating that employers could not fire or refuse to hire people for engaging in legal activities on their own time.

"I don't like smoking, but what this company is doing is just un-American," Bernero said. "These are things happening off duty. . . . If it's legal to fire someone for smoking at home, what's next? A company that fires employees for having a couple beers during the Super Bowl because the boss is a teetotaler? Firing someone because they wear clothes on the weekend that the boss doesn't like?"

In a statement released Monday, Weyco Chief Financial Officer Gary Climes said smoking is clearly a hazard, and that Bernero's legislation would make it more difficult for employers to control health costs.

"When you do something that is extremely harmful to both yourself and others, it's not a privacy issue - it's a matter of exercising some personal responsibility for your behavior," Climes said in the statement. "Michigan businesses, taxpayers and co-workers of smokers have the right to protect themselves from the horrendous damage caused by the self-destructive behavior of a small percentage of employees."

Company President Howard Weyers estimated the company spends $750,000 a year on employee health insurance premiums and said he was concerned that Weyco won't be able to absorb additional increases.

But Anita Epolito - one of the four fired workers - said she had not been participating in Weyco's insurance plan.

"I'm covered by my husband's insurance policy, and have been for years," said Epolito, 48, who worked at Weyco for 14 years.

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/new...al/10842708.htm

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Bill would save smokers' jobs at ban on smokers

P.J HUFFSTUTTER

The Los Angeles Times

CHICAGO - A Michigan state lawmaker said Monday that he planned to introduce a bill to bar companies from firing employees for smoking on their own time.

The proposed so-called "lifestyle legislation" comes in response to a policy at Weyco Inc., an employee benefits company in Okemos, Mich. On Jan. 1, Weyco began randomly testing its 200 workers for nicotine use, saying it would fire those who tested positive and refused to quit smoking.

So far, four Weyco employees have said they were let go.

"Two of those employees are my constituents, and they came to me asking for help," said Sen. Virg Bernero, a Democrat from Lansing who plans to introduce his bill in the next three weeks.

If passed, Michigan would become one of the few states with a law expressly stating that employers could not fire or refuse to hire people for engaging in legal activities on their own time.

"I don't like smoking, but what this company is doing is just un-American," Bernero said. "These are things happening off duty. . . . If it's legal to fire someone for smoking at home, what's next? A company that fires employees for having a couple beers during the Super Bowl because the boss is a teetotaler? Firing someone because they wear clothes on the weekend that the boss doesn't like?"

In a statement released Monday, Weyco Chief Financial Officer Gary Climes said smoking is clearly a hazard, and that Bernero's legislation would make it more difficult for employers to control health costs.

"When you do something that is extremely harmful to both yourself and others, it's not a privacy issue - it's a matter of exercising some personal responsibility for your behavior," Climes said in the statement. "Michigan businesses, taxpayers and co-workers of smokers have the right to protect themselves from the horrendous damage caused by the self-destructive behavior of a small percentage of employees."

Company President Howard Weyers estimated the company spends $750,000 a year on employee health insurance premiums and said he was concerned that Weyco won't be able to absorb additional increases.

But Anita Epolito - one of the four fired workers - said she had not been participating in Weyco's insurance plan.

"I'm covered by my husband's insurance policy, and have been for years," said Epolito, 48, who worked at Weyco for 14 years.

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/new...al/10842708.htm

145493[/snapback]

Interesting situation. So should the government step in to protect the right to smoke on your own time?

[MDM4AU 336]

It's a tricky thing. Should an employer be able to fire someone for something they choose to do? (Absolutely, IMO!)

This doesn't fall under, age, sex, gender, race, religion, familial status, etc. discrimination. This is, however, something that the employee "chooses" to do. But it isn't against the law, either.

Studies have shown that smokers tend to miss more days at work than non-smokers therefore hurting productivity, but if Jimmy Joe or Betty Sue have worked there for 25 years, never missed a day and smoke 2 packs a day, how can you justuify legally firing them?

(In Alabama it wouldn't matter because you don't have to have a reason to fire someone here.)

[TexasTiger 13,017]

It's a tricky thing.  Should an employer be able to fire someone for something they choose to do? (Absolutely, IMO!)

This doesn't fall under, age, sex, gender, race, religion, familial status, etc. discrimination.  This is, however, something that the employee "chooses" to do.  But it isn't against the law, either. 

Studies have shown that smokers tend to miss more days at work than non-smokers therefore hurting productivity, but if Jimmy Joe or Betty Sue have worked there for 25 years, never missed a day and smoke 2 packs a day, how can you justuify legally firing them? 

(In Alabama it wouldn't matter because you don't have to have a reason to fire someone here.)

145575[/snapback]

I'm inclined to agree with you. The ramifications are a little frightening, however. Should an employer be able to fire someone for having a diet high in saturated fat? Excessive sugar? Other unhealthy, but legal, choices? How about drinking alcohol off the clock? One's political affiliation?

As you pointed out, smokers are not a "protected" class under the law. The disabled are, but what if someone becomes disabled because of a choice, e.g. paralyzed due to skydiving?

It is a dangerous road, I believe.

[bigsixfive 328]

There's also the health insurance issue, for the few employers who still provide good health benefits. Smokers have higher premiums, costing the company more money.

While I like this idea, what negative outcomes could it lead to? At what point would a company not have the right to fire you over personal choices? A lawyer could make any personal activity/choice look like it leads to unproductive work behavior or an indirect company expense, so where would the line be drawn?

[Auburn85 432]

Well, I don't appreciate people who are smoking just outside the door at an establishment and you have to walk right through the smoke of the cigarette and the smoke that they blow out of their mouth

[bigsixfive 328]

Well, I don't appreciate people who are smoking just outside the door at an establishment and you have to walk right through the smoke of the cigarette and the smoke that they blow out of their mouth

145589[/snapback]

Me neither... I like the law in California banning it in public places. Even though the air is smoggy, its still nice not to get asphyxiated by cigabutt smoke when you walk through a doorway. I wish they'd ban it on campus except for designated areas.

[Auburn85 432]

Well at AUM, the designated areas are right outside the doorways