[Chefelf]

Quit Smoking or Quit Your Job, U.S. Company Says
Mon Jan 31, 2005 11:12 AM ET
By Andrew Stern

CHICAGO (Reuters) - The owner of a Michigan company who forced his employees to either quit smoking or quit their jobs said on Wednesday he also wants to tell fat workers to lose weight.

A ban on tobacco use -- whether at home or at the workplace -- led four employees to quit their jobs last week at Okemos, Michigan-based Weyco Inc., which handles insurance claims.

The workers refused to take a mandatory urine test demanded of Weyco's 200 employees by founder and sole owner Howard Weyers, a demand that he said was perfectly legal.

"If you don't want to take the test, you can leave," Weyers told Reuters. "I'm not controlling their lives; they have a choice whether they want to work here."

Also a health concern: overweight workers.

"We have to work on eating habits and getting people to exercise. But if you're obese, you're (legally) protected," Weyers said.

He has brought in an eating disorder therapist to speak to workers, provided eating coaches, created a point system for employees to earn health-related $100 bonuses and plans to offer $45 vouchers for health club memberships.

The 71-year-old Weyers, who said he has never smoked and pronounced himself in good shape thanks to daily runs, said employees' health as well as saving money on the company's own insurance claims led him to first bar smokers from being hired in 2003.

Last year, he banned smoking during office hours, then demanded smokers pay a monthly $50 "assessment," and finally instituted mandatory testing.

Twenty workers quit the habit.

Weyers tells clients to quit whining about health care costs and to "set some expectations; demand some things."

Job placement specialist John Challenger said Weyco's moves could set a precedent for larger companies -- if it survives potential legal challenges.

"Certainly it raises an interesting boundary issue: rising health care costs and society's aversion to smoking versus privacy and freedom rights of an individual," Challenger said.

So far no legal challenges have been made to Weyco's policies.

http://www.reuters.c...storyID=7486850

You have to respect someone who makes a move this bold. You also have to think that someone who makes a move this bold is probably a dickweed.

[Chyld]

While its a fine idea in theory, its technically none of his business if his employs are fat, or smoke. Its an insurance company, surely it doesn't affect the work that much? Now if they were, say, sports coaches or doctors or something like that, it'd make sense...

[barend]

it's because it's an insurance company.

insurance companies main objective is to collect money off people, and not give it back under any circumstance... that's what they do. if they have unhealthy 'high risk' employees, they're not happy... because something could happen to them and they may have to pay them...

moral of the story... don't waste money on insurance (unless it's car insurance).

he's in no position to tell people what to do though...
and obesse peoploe cop enough flak as it is... with out getting the 'shape up or ship out speech...

having said that however...
being responsible for 20 people quiting smoking?
well... you'd be feeling pretty good about yourself, and i feel a little less angry towards him...

still leave the over weighters alone, or buy them anphetamines...

[looktothesky]

The owner of a Michigan company who forced his employees to either quit smoking or quit their jobs said on Wednesday he also wants to tell fat workers to lose weight.

If he did that at my part-time job right now, I'd be so, so happy...

[civilian_number_two]

I hope he fires the Negroes next, because they might steal.


I mean honestly people; our society supports corporations, we create laws to encourage commerce, so society can actually enforce standards for companies. what this guy is doing ought to be illegal. He's not running a Fitness club; it's an office job. So as a society we ought to be coming down on this company pretty hard for making outrageous discriminatory policy.

Consider: too many sick days = you're fired.

versus: You smoke, and smokers take more sick days than non-smokers, so = you're fired.


Who still thinks the Negro stealing analogy took it too far?

[Helena]

If this was in Britain, I would agree that it's an unacceptable invasion of privacy. However, I understand that businesses in the US often have to pay the cost of health insurance for their employees, and smokers are far more likely to become seriously ill than non-smokers - so if that's the case in this company, I can understand his behaviour to some extent.

[Just your average movie goer]

You guys are nuts. While I disagree with discrimination against overweight people, I think his policy on smoking should be given the highest praise. Anything that anyone anywhere does to stop people smoking is a very good step forward.

And don't anyone bother with that stupid individual rights argument. Nobody has a right to take on a habit that endangers their health and affects the comfort and health of innocent people around them.

So apart from the overweight issue, I'd say to this guy "Good on you!"

[Slade]

Yeah, it's a toss up between "Hey, those are my rights" and "You're doing an activity that has been legitimately known to increase health risks, and in doing said activity, you're also endangering others."

And the reason that life insurance is more if you're at a higher risk to die is because you need to put in the same amount of money in a shorter amount of time as someone who's living longer, so you have enough by the time you go to make up for the policy. It's not quite that simple, but I'm not going to discuss insurance on here any more than I just did.

[Jordan]

I think this guy is a soup-nazi.

He might aswell ban negros for stealing! What next?

A) If you're married have sex every night for health reasons, if you miss one night, you're fired.

B) If you're not married, then get married

C) No masterbation

D) Brush your back molars.


I've never had a real boss before, but I'd like to think that my future boss thinks nothing more of me than what I'm able to produce at work. I think our relationship should be very distant. Telling me not to lead a certain lifestlye is something I'd expect from close friends or my mother.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 31 January 2005 - 11:40 PM

[civilian_number_two]

MG: Heart disease is a bigger risk to people than smoking, so fatty foods and less active lifestyles should be cause for firing. He should fire people who work office jobs (everyone in his office) and who eat fast foods (just about everyone in his office)

You have to be intentionally missing the point: this guy is firing people for what he sees as a vice. It could just as well be anal sex. He could fire people because they are having anal sex, and say it's because he thinks it's an unhealthy lifestyle choice. He is abusing his authority as an employer by telling people how to act in their spare time. And before you say "He's doing them a favor by offering them a job," remember that America has actual laws against active lifestyle discrimination. Like, you can't fire a guy for engaging in consensual anal sex. For example.

And, no, I don't want people smoking around me either. I like the ban on public smoking. But he's not firing people for smoking at work: he's telling people "quit smoking at home or you are fired." That = seriously well beyond the level of invasion that should be allowed to an employer. It this the 19th century all of a sudden?

Helena, I like your argument, but that ultimately adds up to "I will fire anyone who takes a lot of sick days." You might as well fire people for having physical disorders, for being handicapped, or for being women. After all, women sometimes become pregnant, and go on maternity leave, from which they sometimes never return. That's bad for the bottom line!

This guy should go fuck himself. If I smoked and worked for him, I would butt out my last two cigarettes on his eyeballs.

[Madam Corvax]

Hear, hear!

I speak from the country where they do not allow people even with slight physical disability to teach, where they require women to bring doctor's certificates that they are not pregnant before they get a job and where it is quite normal to fire women after maternity leave.

All for good reasons, of course.

[Just your average movie goer]

I hear what you are saying to a degree, guys. But I believe an employer has a right to discriminate against people on the basis of lifestyle choices and what they consider to be vices.

Remember there's plenty of other people out there who could do the job just as well as the ones who are smoking. I guess maybe he shouldn't hire them in the first place if he is going to fire them for smoking ~ so I'm willing to concede on the argument if we can agree that he has the right to choose not to hire smokers.

This type of thing is acceptable in other situations and rightfully so. For instance, no-one wants to hire customer service assistance with unsightly piercings all over their face. And in Australia, you can't be hired as a teacher if you have visible tatoos.

MG: Heart disease is a bigger risk to people than smoking, so fatty foods and less active lifestyles should be cause for firing. He should fire people who work office jobs (everyone in his office) and who eat fast foods (just about everyone in his office)

Okay, this is fine in that you're arguing against the reasoning behind his decision.

However, I'm praising the fact that he's struck a blow against smoking. The more blows against smoking, the better ~ regardless of the motives.

Do I have a point? No, I'm just rambling on. But.. yay! A blow against smoking!


As you were.

[Laura]

I agree that, while he can determine what goes on in his own office-- like, "No smoking during office hours" is fine and even "No fast food within these walls" is fine, I guess, even though it's crazy-- it's when he gets into these workers' outside lives that he crosses the line. Like the urine test to determine if they've been smoking at all-- even at home. Work is work, and home is home. I don't smoke, but if I worked there, I'd quit anyway. This guy is way to into his workers' private lives.

Things you do on your own time and outside of the office should be your own to choose. The only exception is when these things leave a lasting impression that affects your work-- like if you come to work drunk, or if you're a customer service rep and you got a facial tattoo, I mean, sure, you got it on your own time, but now you have to take it work with you, and that's not cool.

And, unless you have a job where being out of shape actively prevents you from doing the job properly, "coming to work fat" is not grounds for dismissal.

Finally, not all fat people are fat because they eat too much shitty food; and plenty of people who live unhealthy lifestyles and eat a ton of fast food every day remain thin. It's more okay to demand that all of your company's employees live a healthy lifestyle than it is to make hiring and firing decision based on how healthy they *look*. Looks can be deceiving.

Bottom line: Insisting on no smoking at work, providing only healthy food choices in the company caf, instituting a voluntary fitness program, and possibly barring fast food from the building is about as far as this guy can go without being a total assmunch.

[Jen]

I need to look this up, and I will, but I think in the United States at least, employers do have a certain degree of lassitude in hiring people in accordance to their preferences. (Some corporations and the government state explicitly that they hire based on job ability and not on race, color, gender, etc., and that is, in my opinion, all to the good). However, where the law comes into play is about firing. To fire someone, you have to show that they didn't perform the job they were hired to do -- you aren't, in most cases, allowed to fire them because you find their private life to be distasteful. What if my boss decides that it is offensive to him that I live in an unmarried state with my boyfriend? Can he fire me? What, to use a starker example, if I am a homosexual and that is distasteful to my employer? To many people these are issues of vice and lifestyle choice. I have to agree with Jordan and with Civ -- you enter murky waters when you begin firing people for reasons that have nothing to do with their job performance.

[Chefelf]

You guys are nuts.  While I disagree with discrimination against overweight people, I think his policy on smoking should be given the highest praise.  Anything that anyone anywhere does to stop people smoking is a very good step forward.

And don't anyone bother with that stupid individual rights argument.  Nobody has a right to take on a habit that endangers their health and affects the comfort and health of innocent people around them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Surely getting people to stop smoking can't be viewed as all bad, however, no employer should have the right to tell someone what they can't do OUTSIDE of work. Sure, they can tell you not to smoke at work, they can tell you to not have sex in the broom closet but what you do at home should be your own business.

I think people DO have the right to take on a habit that endangers their own health. Sure, they shouldn't be allowed to smoke around other workers. Here in the US there really aren't any workplaces (except for restaurants and bars in some areas) that allow smoking. Over the past few years entire cities, towns and states have been banning smoking even in restaurants and bars. That's a move I applaud because now if I go to a bar I don't have to come home and immediately burn my clothes.

Being a smoker doesn't endanger your coworkers any more than being someone who has unprotected sex outside of work or is a skydiver.

I agree with what Laura said. I hate it when companies give you a drug test before you start. There are two companies (large corporations you have heard of) that I almost got jobs with that issued drug tests. I just hate the idea of it. Firstly, I don't, nor have I ever done any form of drug in my life (Ibuprofen doesn't count, right?). So it's just a little uneasy to feel that level of distrust before I even start the job.

Secondly, why would you eliminate an entire group of people because of an activity that they partake in in their personal life? And don't give me that, "We don't want any stoners" crap. Knowing as many people as I do that smoke pot (and let's face it, drug use in this context is almost 100% pot smokers) I don't find many of them to take on that "stoner" stereotype. Let me just say something as someone who has been a manager and hired people in a foodservice environment: If I had issued a drug test to people before I'd hired them, I would probably have had to reduce my staff by 60%. That's a profession where casual drug use is common place and smoking is even more common. And I had some damn good workers who smoked pot ALL THE TIME outside of work. Great. Good for them. Contrary to what the after school specials tell you, a person is perfectly capable of leading a normal life while smoking pot at home. Two of the best workers I ever had probably hadn't gone a day in five years without smoking pot. But they were at work every day when scheduled, never late and always did a great job.

Testing for drugs (and I'm getting a little off subject here) is ridiculous. If someone has a drug problem, sure it will affect them at work. The same is true of alcohol but they don't go around testing for that. Having said that, would I have fired someone I found smoking pot at work? Yes. Would I fire someone caught drinking at work? Yes... in fact I did.

But smoking doesn't affect your work performance, does it? I agree that smoke breaks (if gone unchecked) can get abused, but the same is true of any type of break given to workers. Believe me, I know.

So, in short, this man thinks he's God's own little servant but he's really just taking away people's rights at the most basic level. We all do something that could be considered unhealthy. I eat a lot of chocolates. I'd be DAMN pissed if my work told me to stop eating chocolates or I'd lose my job. Sure he has helped people quit smoking and on the surface that sounds like a good thing. However, people didn't do it because they wanted to, they did it out of fear. Fear of losing their job, not having any money and being able to support their family.

He doesn't sound like any sort of hero to me.