This news article got me thinking:

Quit Smoking or Quit Your Job



Many of us have undergone urine testing for use of illegal drugs in order to keep our jobs , no matter how much we might object to the procedure. I know that I would never be able to get a job in my line of work without one. Now this guy wants to do urine testing for tobacco.

I've heard a lot of people say that employees should do whatever is required of them by employers, as long as it is not actually illegal, or seek other work. On the other hand, many people may not have much choice of where to work.

To be debated: What restrictions, if any, should there be on what employers can demand of employees?

I would be in the camp that as long as it's legal, the employer can demand anything. The employee might not like the demands, but it is the employer that sets the rules of the company, not the employees. People are free to choose who not to work for.


However, should it be the responsibility of employers to provide work for people even if they don't have many other places to work at?


There are good financial reasons for the employer to demand these things. Health insurance is often lower for non-smokers. And if smoking is not allowed on the premise, property insurance I believe is lower too. I don't know if insurance premiums are lower for fit people, but certainly medical payments are lower for healthy people.

Profitability should be the primary concern of companies (as long as it's legal), even if it might mean demanding things from employees.

Hi Victoria-- great question. I heard an interview with the owner of the company and his attorney yesterday on the radio and wanted to post this as an issue. Thanks for doing it for me!

I think it is absolutely outrageous that a company would be so intrusive as to perform tobacco testing. It is none of their business what an employee does outside company time. If the insurance costs are higher for smokers-- let them pass along the higher premiums to smokers but that is where I draw the line.

I was thinking that I would never ever work anywhere that had this kind of policy on principle alone. And more people should take a stand against it. I hope this case goes to litigation so that the intrusive policies can be tested. I would love to be the attorney fighting them on it! That is how strongly I feel. I can't stand the mentality of some people that they can DICTATE how others run their lives if it doesn't impact them.

You work-- and should get judged on your work product-- not whether you meet the "ideal" person standard set up by the company. To the extent your conduct affects the company's cost-- then pass the higher premiums on-- but that is as far as it can go IMO.

To be debated: What restrictions, if any, should there be on what employers can demand of employees?i have been following this. I must say that I am outraged by it.

Number one, I do not smoke anymore. I quit for personal reasons nearly 18 years ago. So it doesn't effect me.

Number two, I do not like to be around the smell of smoke, but am not a fanatic about that.

Number three, I hate being told what I can and can not do. So I would refuse to take the test and see what they could do. There is no legal way that an employer demands that I take such a test, for a legal substance so I would sue the heck out of the employer for requiring the test as an invasion of my privacy.

So my answer would be if it is legal you can not ban the employee from it in their off duty time. I don't care their reasons, they do not make the laws period. That would be my restriction on the employers.

What restrictions, if any, should there be on what employers can demand of employees?

I’ve been watching this case, too, and am amazed that there are people who agree with this guy’s stance. An employer should not stick his nose in anything that happens during their employees’ lives off company property. It’s none of his business! It’s lifestyle discrimination, plain and simple, and the only reason he’s getting away with it is because his company is privately owned. As long as it is legal, the employer should stay out of it. I’m all for letting the owner have a no smoking policy at his place of business (as long as it is a stated policy), but I’d sure like to see him enforce the “no fat people” policy…especially when he is forcing people to quit…a common side effect of quitting is weight gain.

It’s really kind of funny. People with so-called “healthy lifestyles” get sick and die too. Anybody remember the health-food guy who dropped dead of a heart attack while running? Athletes who die unexpectedly? Is this boss going to force every employee to undergo a full body scan for unknown defects or diseases, etc. etc. ad nauseum to "keep his insurance costs low"? What a freakin' lame excuse for discriminating against people for doing something that is legal (so far, anyway, the health nazis are working on changing that, I'm sure).

A funny observation; ever go to a hospital to visit a sick friend/relative, etc. and see all the doctors and nurses who smoke?

Even if I were a skinny non-smoker I wouldn’t want to work for this bozo. If he values lifestyle choices over a person’s qualification to do a job, that’s his prerogative. I hope he goes out of business soon.

We're missing three significant points:
1. An employer is paying an employee to be there, and the US is a large country with ample opportunity. If an employee doesn't like the policy, they are free to leave.
2. Smokers tend to take time out of the day for breaks, which generally alters their production/efficiency.
3. Smokers statistically miss more work due to illness. It's not surprising that smokers tend to get sick more than non-smokers.

Small businesses have a lot on the line. If lost productivity, lost time, and increased costs are an issue... why shouldn't they have a no-smoker policy? Plenty of companies have drug tests, which isn't different at all! Drug testing is under the presumption that users will miss more work, be a higher security risk, etc. If what happens after hours isn't any of the businesses concern, why aren't people up in arms about drug testing? ? It's not much different...

It's a lot different, illegal drugs are well illegal. Whether I like it or not smoking in general is not a crime. So those people are not breaking any laws by smoking.

To control one's behavior when on their own time is illegal. What's next? If an employer is Muslim or Baptist, we get prohibition again? What if their Mormon and say that their employees can't have caffeine?

No now is the time to draw the line and tell employers that their rights end at the doors to their business period.

I would counter by saying smoking hardly hits the radar screen for lost time. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

Maybe employers should only hire senior citizens?

That's a toughie...the ergonomic folks say you should take a break from repetitive tasks every hour or so...more lost time.

And just an interesting side note: According to this BLS chart, the occupations with the highest employee absenteeism is healthcare, following closely by the federal government!

As for smoker’s taking breaks, I would respond by asking about those non-smoking employees who lounge around chit-chatting with each other, taking coffee breaks, paying their bills, yakking on the phone, etc. The law requires most employers to give employees two 15-minute breaks and a minimum 30-minute lunch period per 8-hour shift. How does someone smoking on those breaks affect productivity?

Here’s another interesting statistic:

I’m with lorenq59-employers need to butt out…pun intended.

I don't think we're missing anything at all. However, you may have missed the salient point in this story:

It's not that these employees are being forbidden to smoke anywhere on the company property, during working hours.

They are being forbidden to smoke, anywhere, period. They can't light up in the car on the way home, they can't smoke at a local bar over a drink, they can't smoke at home. If they fail the urine test for tobacco, they will be terminated.

And that's where this policy becomes overly intrusive. I agree with you, that the employer can set any policy he wishes for employees working on his time. But if employees don't smoke during work hours, and smoke only away from the job, how is that the employers business?

Yes, lots of people are fired for using illegal drugs that are caught during drug screenings, as well. But as has been noted earlier, those drugs are illegal to begin with, and have proven, serious detrimental effects on things like concentration, motor skills, etc., which could be dangerous in the workplace.

Tobacco is a legal product, sold nearly everywhere in this country. How can you, as an employer, dictate what is done legally by an employee, off of your premises, and off of your time card?

The other thing I have a problem with, is how sensitive is this test? For instance, what if the employee does quit, but their spouse (and perhaps others in their family) does not? Can the test detect levels from second hand smoke? If so, does the employer now get to dictate lifestyle choices of the employees family and friends, as well? Ludicrous!

Niteguy - You wrote my next set of questions as well!!! I would like to point out that if you go out to a place that has smoking and breath 2nd smoke, won't that too show up? Can you get fired for going out to eat?

I might wish places to be smoke free, if fact I do want that because when I dine out I do not wish to smell cigarettes. I live in the MidWest and it does happen. So if I work someplace that bans smoking and test for it, can I lose my job?

What up people that go skiing on the off duty time. Heck I know a lot of them that get injured doing that. Now if an employer wants their employees to be productive, do they then have the right to say - gee because of the injuries caused by skiing, any of our employees caught doing that are fired? This is getting to be ridiculous. My time is mine and mine alone.

What comes after skiing, maybe sunbathing, heck that causes skin cancer. Boy oh boy that one is a no-no. I now that the military can and does go after personnel for getting sun-burned (damaging government property). But in reality once this starts, where does it end? When is it too intrusive? Just because we earn a paycheck at a certain place does not give that business the right to dictate our personal lives.

Isn't it? So its none of his business (or the other employees there) that he has to pay more for health insurance (costs that will inevitably be passed on to the other employees). So, let me ask a simple question: How much more would you be willing to pay to support the off-site activities of others? Specifically, how much more would/should you have to pay because other employees choose to smoke?

Let me be clear--I do not in general support the invasion of employers into employees lifestyle or other off-site activities. However, the health care issue clouds the distinction between what is the employees business and what isn't. If an employees off-site activities have a direct impact on a business's costs, and therefore on the costs incurred by the other employees, doesn't it become a business decision? I think it does. However, I am also troubled by exactly where this process could lead....it could drive those with any health related issues out of the workplace. So, I'm not sure of the solution, but I do think this is more than a simple 'I'm the boss, so you'll do what I say' issue.

Hobbes - I have one question for you. I don't sunbath, but know co-workers that go to tanning salons, etc, should I have to pay more in health care for their skin cancer treatments down the road? This is one very slippery slope that gets steep in a big hurry.

I can understand your point of view, but where is the line drawn?

Well, I am pretty Lockean when it comes to property rights and rights of association. A business is the business owner's property. Providing no third party is harmed, and any possible risks to an employee are divulged, he should be able to run his business as he likes. If he requires all his employees be gay, short and ugly because he is insecure and fears his wife may have an affair with an employee that should be his right. Us tall, good-looking, straight guys will just have to seek employment elsewhere.

No, it isn't. Should he be able to ask you if you have diabetes? High blood pressure? MS? Lupus? Crohn's? Thyroid condition? Depression? All of these require a fair amount of health care dollars, but an employer cannot ask about them.

We support the "off-site" activities of others all the time. Like Lorenq says, what about someone who injures themself skiing? Or any other sport? Shall we confine employees' activities to only those that are injury/risk-to-health-free? Why don't we just store employees in the closet overnight and take them out the next day? People aren't robots, they have lives, and their lifestyle should not be dictated by their employer. An employer can encourage a healthier lifestyle by offering cessation classes or the like, but they cannot and should not dictate what an employee can and cannot do, within the law, on his own time.

However, the health care issue clouds the distinction between what is the employees business and what isn't. If an employees off-site activities have a direct impact on a business's costs, and therefore on the costs incurred by the other employees, doesn't it become a business decision? I think it does.

Durn tootin, Hobbes, and as for your troubled mind? Well, let me tell you that I am sick and tired of soring healthcare costs all around. It's all these darn children, you know, and the aged. Runners too, bicyclists, motorcyclists and what about those triple bypasses for corporate execs?

Nobody is forcing anyone to do any of these things, right? You know, have children, recreate, live into old age, or run a corporation. But they are all health risks!

Yep, plenty of reason to be troubled.

Basically, I am against an employer nannying me worse than any government could. I think most people are with me, except some employers. We might need to do something about them.

Skip work week? Sure, an unofficial week where nobody shows up for work. That might send a message. It would be quite an expression of freedom. It'd also take a lot of guts, so probably not -- yet.

I am fortunate to work for outfits that don't care what you do with your free time, as long as it's legal and as long as the work gets done. That's the end of my relationship with these outfits. I don't care what the employers do with their spare time either (legal stuff), because, as everyone knows, it is none of my business.

As for urine screening -- I still maintain that my urine is not free! Ten grand an ml for keeping my body healthy enough to urinate. I think that's fair, being as some employers think they own me, even though the price for me is in the billions of dollars. Oh heck, let's make it so big that all the wealth on Earth could not buy me.

Yep, that's the price, all the wealth on Earth plus a penny.

One contributor wrote:

Employers are not able to dictate what you can legally do, off of the premises, on your own time.

However, employers can dictate whether or not they want to continue to employ you, for nearly any reason whatsover, as long as it does not involve invidious discrimination (race, ethnicity, etc.) or any contractual or statutory restrictions. The long recognized concept of Employment-at-Will established that if employment is not for a definite term, and if there is no contractual or statutory restriction on the right of discharge, the employment is presumed to be terminable at the will of either party, and the employer may lawfully discharge an employee for any cause or no cause whatsover without incurring liability for wrongful discharge.

Thus, the employer doesn't have the power to stop you from smoking in your own home - but the employer does have the power to refuse to continue to employ you if you do. In the end, if you want to smoke in your own home, you just have to find employment somewhere else, etc. Discussions about health care coverage and employment costs are nice and interesting but they do not impact on the fundamental underlying employment principle at work here; even if you could prove Mr. Howard Weyers wrong about his health care ideas, he is still well within his rights as the employer.

If it was a clear term for employment when I was hired and made a requirement for hire--thats one thing. Too suddenly make the change --forget it.

I wouldn't quit either. He'd have to fire me and then I would do my best to make him pay thru the nose.

Azure-Citizen,

I understand the way things are now, but that isn't the question. The question is about what should be.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the employment-at-will laws have been successfully challenged in court, enough so that employers are (or should be) very careful when doing a firing.

I think we need better employer/employee relationships. Right now, the attitude of mercenary employee isn't just a lifestyle choice -- it is necessary for survival. What suffers is dedication or any caring whatsoever for the employer. These feelings get transferred to the profession. As a result, employers watch their best staffers leave for better situations, and the business suffers as a result.

For example, the key network folks walked away from MCI and across the street to a major competitor, all at once. Later down the road, due to greenies running the network, the longest network outage in history hit MCI. This outage, and specifically the fines incurred, contributed to its bankruptcy.

Seems to me that the undermining of the employer/employee relationship over the past fifty years wasn't such a good business idea. Nor is playing nanny to employees by monitoring their legal activities.

AuthorMusician, if you look carefully at my post, you'll note that I was responding specifically to someone else's question about "How can an employer..." etc.

Every health plan I have had during my working career has one rate for smokers and one rate for non-smokers. You are required to answer that question when you sign up. The only possible argument I could see for testing for smokers is to determine if the employee was lying when s/he answered that question. But even then, I still don't think it is the employer's problem it is something the health insurance provider should pursue if they are concerned about it. Furthermore, I don't see how the expense in doing all that testing would be worth the benefit.

To the best of my knowledge employers pay the same amount for smokers and non-smokers, the additional cost is passed on to the person being insured. Now if this employer is trying to blame smokers in general for increased health care costs he is off his rocker because there are numerous factors behind that. What would be the next step requiring a genetic profile or physical fitness test before joining? Come on.

I think that an employer has the right to make any policy within reason about what an employee can or cannot do during working hours and while on company property as long as it is properly disclosed to the employee either before they start working or with some reasonable notice when the policy changes. Most businesses ban smoking in the building and a lot of businesses restrict internet usage, I see nothing wrong with that. Most employers also have policies about what will happen if you engage in illegal activities outside of work, and I also have no problem with that.

However, no employer has the right to tell you what you can or cannot do outside of work if you aren't breaking any laws. As soon as you are off the clock and out of the door you can do whatever you want.

If the "illegal" part of your argument was the issue in reference to drug screens, how come people don't get fired for cheating on their taxes, for driving drunk, or other "illegal" acts? Drug screens aren't used to prosecute people, yet to screen undesireable employees. The employers aren't concerned about the legality, but about having drug users as employees.

In reference to tobacco being legal, so are many other things that employers prohibit. Many employers require a certain dress, no piercings, no visible tatoos, etc. The logic is that it doesn't fit the way that they do business. Smokers, even as other posts show, take multiple breaks specifically for this purpose. Any smoker will attest to that. They obviously get sick more, as insurance premiums are higher. It didn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure that out. Being sick more would naturally affect productivity/efficiency at some point.

Finally, it's obvious that the concern isn't what is happening off of employers time cards. It's apparent that the effects that smoking have on their bottom line are the concern, and completely within their rights to screen. There aren't drawn out discussions about discrimination because dept stores won't allow sales clerks to have blue hair. Why? It's obvious.

I understand the "bleeding heart" mentality, and have many smoker-friends. The problem is that jobs don't have inalienable rights. Employers work hard to build businesses, and have the right to ask employees to act in ways that may not appeal to some of us. So be it. This is a free country and, occasionally to our disliking, part of what makes us Americans.

This is not an issue of the employer dictating things, but reacting to health care costs (which is certainly a big issue). It's not that the employer cares whether or not his employees smoke...its that he, and therefore his other employees, will be faced with higher health care costs because of those activities. Again, as I asked before.....how much more would you be willing to pay to support the off-site activities of others? $50/month? $100/month? $300? $500. All of these are very realistic, depending on the size of the employer and the health issue defined. Is it right to expect the other employees to have to pay for this?

Daffy and AM--I do see your points. As I said initially, I am not a fan of employer's having the right to pry into our personal lives. But, how much extra should they, and the other employees, have to pay to support these choices? For those decrying this activity...I have noticed a profound reluctance to answer that question.



Agreed, and I don't know. I am simply seeking to inject the real reasons behind this into the discussion...and the fact that these are costs that will be born by the other employees, as well as the business owner. But, you get from this to some Gattaca world very quickly.

However, as to where the line is drawn, it is not set by the employer, but by the insurance company. The line is drawn when the business is faced with the decision of whether to employee certain people who are making choices which detract from their health, or whether they should shoulder the additional costs for insuring these people and thereby inflict that cost on their other employees. What happens in these situations is that your insurance costs are adjusted for both the risks your employees assume, and also by past history. For a smaller firm, one major hospitalization due to smoking could potentially drive up the costs of their health insurance significantly...since they might then

To be debated: What restrictions, if any, should there be on what employers can demand of employees?

Interesting topic. I told a buddy of mine at work about this case over lunch and he was stunned to find out that what the employer is doing, at least on the surface, is perfectly legal.

Ultimately I think it boils down to the fact that we are in a capitalist society. As employees we are given the right to find employ wherever we choose. From an economic sense you could call it a freedom of association.

The same is true of the employer. Provided they do not discriminate on some fundamental grounds, they are legally able to place any number of conditions on your employment with the full knowledge that you may tell them to shove off and leave. For the most part I'd say that relationship is equal. Is it fair given that they hold the purse strings? If you want pure equality go open your own business.

As Hobbes pointed out, I'm not condoning this employer's actions in any form. Merely stating my own acceptance of the facts as they are in our society today.

Now, should employees have some rights in this equation? Maybe. But there are slippery slopes in both directions. Placing restrictions on an employer's ability to select employees has its own tangled web of caution. Once smoking gets added to a "Workers Bill of Rights" does affirmative action extend to gay and lesbian employees now? Yes, I know there is a leap there but I think you'll agree that jump isn't so far fetched.

I'll tell ya where the employer gets a lot backing, potentially. If we ever *require* businesses to provide health insurance to their employees, then he has every right to demand that his employees assist him in managing costs. That could probably be easily settled by a rate for smokers vs. non, but hopefully you can see the potential here. Then an interesting legal conflict comes between HIPPA and the employers when they start insisting that people with pre-existing conditions declare them prior to employment. Man, what a mess that creates.

I think on the scale of justice in today's time, if we're deciding whether to tip the scale to the employer or the employee, my suggestion is probably to leave it alone. The potential consequences may far outweigh the hassle of a job search when your boss gets unruly.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...wtopic=8798&hl=

This is a topic i started about who should be responsible for health coverage.

The answer IMO is to remove the burden and liability from the employer and place it where it belongs--on the individual.
It is the only way to fairly remove the potential problems associated with the employer based model.
Why should the company bear the responsibilty?
How can you protect yourself from the depradations of scumbag employers like the focus of this topic who feel they have a right to dictate the lives of others?

A company is not in the business of providing health care but making or distributing or supporting widgets. Its only responsibility is to its bottom line. the only way to insulate yourself from the dangers of the necessity of cost maintenance of business or the whims of tyrants is to remove your self from their grasp as much as possible.

I also agree with Hobbes--Why should I have to pay for your stupidity. fat obese people drive up my rates--as do smokers--drug users. even just extreme activity people.
You play YOU should pay--not me.

How do you figure he is paying anything more than what he pays for any of his non-smoking employees?? An employer buys a certain health care package or packages. I have never worked for a company that rated each employee’s health care cost individually by age, weight, medical condition or whether or not they smoked. The only “cost” this employer is shouldering is the cost of the option to provide his employees' healthcare in the first place. If he is so cost-conscious, he could buy a cheaper plan, offer fewer plan options, or make employees get their own insurance!

The only place I can see where there is a possibility of increased cost is in lost time, and I dispute the claim that smokers are out sick more than non-smokers.

And I’m going to reiterate again that what a person does after he leaves the workplace is LEGALLY none of the employers’ business. What I do when I leave work is my own business.

Daffy,

For some businesses, it would have no effect. But, just as with many people's individual insurance, many provider's manage their programs by screening the people they cover, and placing them in appropriate rate categories. Since it is the company buying the package, it is there that the category is determined. For larger companies, the general proportions in the country are just assumed to apply. But, for smaller companies, it is sometimes up to them to provide evidence of which categories should apply to them. Smokers have more health issues than non-smokers, so companies who employ smokers likely to be charged more for their insurance. This is the case in almost all life insurance policies...the implications to the health care industry are the same.

However, this doesn't mean that I don't agree with you, Daffy. Although I would be somewhat at having to pay for other's health choices, I am also reluctant to subject my life to the scrutiny this infers. So, I don't necessarily agree with this...but I can see why it might happen. My opinion on this would also likely vary depending on whether I am an employer, faced with the higher health care costs vs an employee wanting to maintain my privacy. I see the point on both sides. I also definitely agree with those who see the slippery slope on this as more of ice-coated cliff...it's a long long way down, and the bottom could be reached in a hurry if one isn't careful. But I think one needs to consider it from all angles before a workable solution could be found. Christopher's solution of removing health care as an option is one solution...although the very reason companies started doing this is to provide the insurance at a cheaper rate than individuals could otherwise get...so there is a definite cost associated with this solution.

I think a point that is missed in many discussions on this subject is this.

The stated reason for these dismissals is the companies responsibility to "reign in" rising Health Insurance premium costs.

Maybe Weyco was unaware that they offered Health Insurance as an "incentive" for people to consider working for them, not a mandatory pre-employment requirement. This being the case it is a bit like asking for a Volunteer to work a Holiday, and as an incentive, offering to pay him 2 1/2 times his pay. The employee works the hours, but when he comes to pick up his check, not only is he paid, but he get a notice that he was fired because another worker would have done the work for 1 1/2 times pay.

If cost cutting means firing people for freely using an optional job benifit, then what stops an employer from doing the above?

I also can't find any information as to if any smoking spouses of employees were dropped from the Health Insurance Coverage. It would seem to me that if Weyco needs to cut these costs, then they must drop spouses from the policy, as they would add as much expense as the employees that were fired did.

Aevans wrote:




How could you cede so much control over to an employer? It shocks me. As to your three points:

1. what if most employers took up this policy-- there wouldn't be that kind of choice
2. first, let the employer control smoking during company time if need be-- but this policy goes way beyond company time and intrudes into personal time. second, if the employee is not being efficient enough then that is grounds for firing him-- not smoking
3. again, if the employee is missing work excessively, then let the employer fire him. it is not the employer's business to regulate the employee's behavior.

Aevans Wrote:



Point #1: Employeers are the ones offering the benifits package, not the employee. They do so, many times to lure an employee from other companies. No company has ever been forced to offer benifits. So this part of the aregument fails on base.

Lets also look at what the employee sacrifices to fill the position that they are lured into.

Leave home for 8 to 14 hours a day. Put children into daycare. Miss Childrens school activities, and on and on. I wonder if the employees really should have the right to pry into the employers personal lives, after all, it is the employee that creates the wealth.

Point #2: Your first sentence is baseless for the most part. Most employers give specific times that employees can take as "breaks". The myth that smokers take more is mostly an urban legend. Perhaps we should monitor how many breaks pregnant employee's take to urinate. Cost cut by firing all pregnant women?

Point #3. Statistically, women with small children at home lose far more time from the job then smokers. Annually I have (for 18 years straight) missed less time from work then anyone else in my Company. Of the 38 employees, the 5 smokers are all in the Top 10 of the fewest days missing off the job.

The point in all of this is that the "pool" of employees will always have some stronger then others, some weaker then others. It's simply a part of the buisness world.

Reading all the complaints here I suppose we don't have any government workers who have some level of security clearance.
They give you all kinds of "tests" and base your employment on whether you pass or not.

Also I had thought drug tests also analyzed blood alcohol levels..now drinking booze is not illegal either but drinking it regularly and at high levels or having a drinking habit is an undesirable character for many positions of employment like an airline pilot..and they are routinely checked. So how is this not as invasive as it is for the smokers?
I just don't really understand how the urine tests for drugs etc. is somehow acceptable but the tobacco is over the line. What's the big deal with them adding one more thing to the list? They already analyze you to see if you drink, do drugs or if you are on prescription medicine..how is that not invasive? They often make you take personality tests to attempt to psychoanalyze you. They peep into your past records. They investigate your financial history...they have access to your medical history and now they want to look to see if you smoke and now everyone gets upset..seems a little late to me.

I had a DoD security clearance, and yes, we had to take a drug test and nowadays they do lie detector tests, BUT there is no tobacco test that I know of. If you have any proof that they do this, please provide a link. What they look for in security clearance investigations are things that would make you vulnerable to offers to commit espionage and the like (i.e. financial problems, mental problems, drug or alcohol abuse problems, relatives in "sensitive" areas). Yes, it's a lot stricter in post-9/11 days. An engineer in my office was told he probably wouldn't be able to get a clearance because he has family in Mexico. Huh, funny, I didn't know Mexico was on the "bad" list.

Oh, and the guy is running an insurance business, I believe, nothing that would require a clearance.

I heard this on the radio yesterday while travelling and was curious to see if this would be on here and I was right... quite an interesting topic to debate so here's my two cents.

While I think that it may not be any of the employer's business what I do in my spare time, I have to agree with the over all principle. Many people have been referring to invasion of privacy as reasoning that he should not be able to do this but I think we're missing several points. A couple of people have mentioned not only the drug screening but also background screening as well. Having bad credit can keep you from getting a job. Is that discrimination or invading privacy? Having a criminal past can keep you from getting a job. Having a tattoo, nose ring or pink mohawk hair could keep you from getting a job. So are any of these employers discriminating? I've worked several jobs that enforced a dress code such as suit/tie which I had to buy. Was that discriminatory? So the question is "what employers can demand of employees?" I say anything that they deem suitable for their businesses.

The point that was mentioned in an early post that I most agree with is "at will employment" That works both ways. You have the right to work there and they have the right to fire you.

StlJoe yes they have the right to fire you, but if we refuse to provide the sample to test for nicotine and were fired for it, it would be a groundless reason.

As I stated earlier I don't smoke nor do I live in an environment that has smoking and do not care for the smell. I would not provide that sample and if fired for not providing it would be taking that employer to court for damages. There is no legal requirement to give the employer a urine sample for nicotine to date.

As for other tests if you show up with a high alcohol level then I believe that you would be drunk at work and yes that is grounds for firing. I do think that most business have a policy against being drunk or stoned at work.

I wonder how the bad credit background check works. I mean if you are trying to get out of debt then getting a job and paying the bills seems to be a very logical and positive method. I do not have enough information to comment on this matter.

Couldn't high blood alcohol levels just be you being drunk at home? I don't believe the tests are accurate enough to determine the exact time you consumed the alcohol only that you did. And I am sure many employers have chosen to not employ someone who they feel may have a drinking problem regardless if they felt that drinking occurred in the privacy of their own home or not. Also these tests provide employers with information on any prescription drugs you may be taking too. So what if it comes out your on a drugs for a legitimate medical reason? Are you then required to explain why you have to do drugs and disclose your medical records to prove this?

I am hearing that companies want to fire smokers for health insurance reasons.
Well that means they can fire people with aids,high blood pressure,drinkers,extreme athletes and mental health issues.
But there is also another problem.
Alot of companies have programs that send people to rehabilitation for illegal drug use or alcoholism.
They pay for the time off to kick the habit as a drug addiction.
They consider tobacco a drug (and it is) but they do not want to do that for smokers because there are alot of tobacco users in the major companies.
If GM,Ford or Chrysler sent smokers to rehab for 2 weeks that would mean the factories would be shut down or idled.
But to fire them would allow them to hire new workers at less pay and save money without the need for doing what is right.

Well if it is undesirable to have smokers work for a company because of what a company stands for what about aids and homosexuality.
Not to say only gays get aids because that would be a lie.
But most aids victims are from drug use (dirty needles) and sexual conduct (sleeping around and homosexuality).with a small amount coming from contaminated needles at a medical facility.
Isn't that undesirable.
But it would be discriminatory to fire them for being gay or having aids.
Your right they have a dress code but thank god I can not be fired for not wearing polyester on my off time.
I have personally seen people fired for testing positive to illegal drugs just to get their jobs back after rehab. Especially if they are not your basic workers (i.e. managers).
What about people who have guns and go shooting on the weekend (other than hunting).
Isn't it possible they might "go postal"?
Why not just have companies build residential property on their site for the employees so they can be monitored at all times.
If they call off sick the management would be able to go to see how sick they are.
How many people call off sick when they are not?
That costs companies money for overtime and lost productivity.

Here is the answer to that question.
The amount I am willing to pay extra towards insurance for smokers is directly connected to the amount paid towards insurance for the right of drinkers.
Majority of Car accidents are caused by drunk drivers who in some cases take a life through their choice.
Granted they get taken to court and pay a fine and do jail time and pay penalties but the insurance companies pay the rest.
Which is paid for by all of us.
A person drinks so much that they get sorosis of the liver (an uncle of mine died from that) and his insurance company pays for it.
Naturally at our expense.
It is not limited to alcohol.
We all pay for others choices to do alcohol,sex,tobacco,fire arms and gambling.
So ban them all.
When nobody can get heart disease from fast foods,get aids from unprotected sex,killed by a drunk driver or shot in a drive by shooting the insurance would be cheap.
And there for the slim chance of pollutants at work caused by the companies like working with asbestos,smoke stacks,lead,etc.. And God knows that doesn't happen.

Here is the problem with the "At will" argument, it is absolutely not true. The employer must accept the responsibility of obeying the law, and respecting the rights of the employee. Opening a company does not override this.

Several of the examples that you quote are also not quite true.

Tattoos, THAT ARE VISIBLE, can legitimately be cause for dismissal, but one that is not visable is not.

If you applied the same standard, as the smoking dismissal, then someone, off duty, that put on a temporary tattoo could legitamatly be dismissed. Would you have a problem with that?

If you have body piercings, you might not be hired for certain jobs that require a conservative look, but only if the piercing are of the type that show. I would find it hard to beleive that a company COULD require applicants to show thier bellybuttons to assure that they follow the "body Piercing" prohibition. I also would find it hard to beleive that the courts would find in favor of such an intrusion of privacy.

Alchohol: If someone tests positive for enough alchohol in thier system, that it would cause them to be less productive then, yes it is reasonable to assume that they could be fired, although I would bet that the company would think twice about doing it because the employee would just claim that he took cough syrup.

The dress code was already addressed.

I wonder if an employee, that lives with a smoking spouse would be fired because the test would show them as smokers? Obviously you don't have to smoke to have the chemicals in your system.

Remember, failing the test is the reason for the firing. If the CEO goes to a bowling alley, or is married to a smoker, should he not take the test and be fired if the chemicals are present? REMEMBER, it is test results that matter, not anything else.

High alcohol levels would indicate that you were still intoxicated. Whether you got that way at home or not does not matter. Showing up to work still drunk is as bad as getting drunk at work.

I do not know about medications, though have heard about people being re-instated because they were proscribed medicines. I guess each state has different rules in that regard.

I have heard sooooo many times on the television and the radio today that the reason that these employees were fired was that THEY, and thier smoking was costing the company additional money due to the increased cost of Health Insurance.

HAS THIS COUNTRY GONE COMPLETELY MAD, or is the population become so niave as they do not understand that Weyco was not obligated to offer Health Insurance to ANYONE? Put simply, containing this "increased cost" could be completed by simply dropping the employee from the policy!

If Weyco (which sounds much like Whacko) truely was concerned about the cost of Health Care, they could simply take away, or reduce the Health Insurance benifits from these employee's.

By NOT handling this in the above manner, Weyco, and its founder (one of the least healthy looking people I have ever seen, looks like a pale taliban), this move is nothing but punitive.

EDITED TO ADD:

Lets say the headline was a bit different, the headline read:

EMPLOYEES FIRED FOR TAKING THIER VACATION TIME

The article goes on to say, that 4 employees were fired today when they returned from taking previously approved paid vacation time. Whacko company spokesperson David L. Taliban explained that the 4 employees vacation time cost the company in production and this was implimented as a "cost cutting" measure.

The same principle is in play. Instead of firing the employees, the company could have simply not approved the use of the "vacation" incentive.

If this were the case, instead of smokers, but simply employee's that accessed the vacation benifit, EVERYONE would be in an uproar.

I don't think that's legally possible, red. An employer must either offer health insurance, or not...they can't pick and choose who they offer it to. Further, the cost of such insurance is then adjusted according to the health history of the company...so the increased cost is incurred by all the employees, not just those who had the health issues.

Hobbes:

What you say has some merit, but Weyco did have the option of making the employee's ineligible in several ways (If they were interested in thier employees, which they obviously were not).

1. Reduce hours to make them less then full time.

2. Put them under a temp service contract. or

3. Classify them as temporay full time, then drop them for several months to part time (layoffs etc.) then back to temporary full time.

4. Establish a lower pay rate for those that cost the company additional costs.

The point is, that weyco offered an incentive, which was Health Insurance, then ONLY fired a SINGLE CLASS of what may be higher users.

Remember Hobbes, Health Insurance is a "social" policy, that being that the least healthy pay the same as the most healty.

Are you suggesting that "Employee A" that is found to have a malidy that WILL cost several Millions of Dollars in future health care face firing? The "smokers" only MIGHT cost more and are fired.

Red,

My arguments are not intended to support the actions taken by this particular employer...I think there are a great many other steps that could/should have been taken. I certainly don't think a blanket firing was in order. Rather, my comments are directed more at the generic issue...do employers have the right to discriminate against hiring based on medical issues. I don't necessarily support that, either...but I can see where their arguments would come from. So, I am mainly trying to point out the issue from the employer's perspective, and also that these issues would also affect all the other employees in many companies. It's kind of a discriminatory catch-22...if you don't discriminate at hiring, then you stand the risk of being discriminated against yourself (in the form of higher health insurance premiums)...which then puts you in the position of having to discriminate against the employees later. These isn't really a winning scenario in this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1524684.stm

The boss is the boss. He should be able to do as he wishes.

Hobbes wrote:



Let me guess, you don't realize that Health Insurance is a "shared cost" program?

Let me flip the question a bit, to give it a "real world" flavor:

Should an employee that has one healthy child be allowed to opt another employee who has 4 children, 2 that are healthy, and 2 that are not, out of the program?

That is basically what you say should happen.

Sad world we are creating isn't it.

The employer has every right to make demands of the employee's at the place of employment, but when he make demands of the employee after hours, when the employee is not at the job, the employee then becomes a "slave".

Specifically, how much more would/should you have to pay because other employees choose to smoke?

The question is without merit, because you are assuming that the employees are mandated to participate in the program in the first place. NOT A SINGLE employee is forced to pay a penny more, they can simply opt out of the program completely.

I'm kind of torn on this issue.

The libertarian in me wants to jump and yell at the employer to mind his own business. The economist in me says, business is business, and if the employer can justify the prohibition by demonstrating an increase in profits, then he is within reason to demand it.

I guess where I finally fall after deliberating on this, and reading other posts, is that if anyone, whatever their lifestyle, has higher premiums, the employer is justified in passing those higher premiums on. And employees can do whatever they feel like while off the premises without recrimination from the employer.

So the issue then becomes, are insurance companies justified in charging different rates to different customers, but that's a no-brainer, and off-topic anyway.

An interesting update to the thread is the Casino in Jersey that is forcing wait staff to maintain their weight or get fired. You gain over 7% your starting weight and you get canned.

Borgata Hotel: Fat waitresses are sent packing - Feb. 21, 2005
http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/18/news/midcaps/hotel_weight/

For whomever posted that employees are responsible for the lack of loyalty from corporations, have you visited Flint Michigan (see Roger and Me)? The recent "job hopping" trend, IMHO, is a result of corporations that have no loyaltly to their workers. Few companies are going to stick by you any more (they only care about stockholders, you're just a margin in the leger), long term jobs are a thing of the past. Job hopping is a result of corporate greed.

That said, I am very big on privacy and freedom. I don't like employers that feel that "you butt belongs to them". It's a mutual relationship, you shouldn't be responsible for more than the work you do.

The only thing that makes this appealing to me is the soaring cost of medical care. Much of that is due to obesity and smoking/drug abuse, etc. And as much as I agree that people should be allowed to get fat, I don't think the generosity of employers and the rest of society should be paying for that freedom.

So I have no problem with a company that offers health care to screen employees to make sure they're holding up their bargain. I think there should be laws that allow companies to drop employees that don't take care of themselves. It may be drastic, but why should the rest of society burden someone else's inability to take care of themselves?

In the same vain, I think all drugs should be made legal but it should be legal to discriminate against people who use drugs, for work or for whatever.

Instead of being the nanny for everyone, we just need to give people some responsiblity to go along with the benefits.

My employer requires that you disclose if you smoke or not when you apply for health benefits. If you smoke, you pay a higher monthly rate on your health care then if you don't. My employer also provides assistance for those seeking to quit smoking. There are several programs to choose from, including the patch or gum, all of which my employer will pay for if you remain smoke-free for one year.

I have a problem we people being terminated because of the choices they make. I do NOT suggest that the employer should not be able to do this, but I would not support a company that did.

There are other options to deal with the higher health costs. The simplist option, would be what my employer does, pass on that higher cost to you since you are responsible for them. The other option would be to raise the cost of everyones health care to cover the higher costs. I don't think that is a fair approach, but it is the approach many insurance companies are forced to take because of the attitude that you should not be "discriminated" against because you are different (though that doesn't seem to apply to smoking since that practice is not PC either). If your lifestyle puts you in a higher risk category then you should pay the cost difference, as I do. If you smoke, if you're overweight, etc., you are the reason for the higher costs so you should pay them yourself. Why should other employees have to pay higher health care costs because I smoke?

I can understand this, to some degree. Whether or not it is right, customers prefer good-looking, fit wait staff, and if they are "stuck" with a "fatty", may choose to go elsewhere. I see this simply as a business decision which has a discernable impact on the profits.

Rather than get angry at the Casino for unfair practices, I think the first victim of our wrath should be those customers (probably ourselves included) who are discriminating against the overweight staff.