1. #1
    PeedeeShaolin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,515
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!

    4 U.S. workers fired for smoking.....cigarett es

    Four workers in the United States have lost their jobs after refusing to take a test to see if they were smokers.
    They were employees of Michigan-based healthcare firm Weyco, which introduced a policy banning its staff from smoking - even away from the workplace.

    The firm says the ban is to keep health costs down and has helped 14 staff to stop smoking, but opponents say the move is a violation of workers' rights.
    Very interesting situation here thats been going on for a bit now.

    Should an employer be allowed to fire someone for enjoying a LEGAL activity AWAY from the workplace?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4213441.stm
    "All warfare is based on deception." -Sun Tzu, ca. 400BC


    Reverse punch Kiaii!!!

  2. #2
    Mr. Mantis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    under the sink
    Posts
    6,331
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by PeedeeShaolin

    Should an employer be allowed to fire someone for enjoying a LEGAL activity AWAY from the workplace?
    No they shouldn't.
    “We are surrounded by warships and don’t have time to talk. Please pray for us.” — One Somali Pirate.

  3. #3
    Thaiboxerken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    6,349
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I agree. The employer, however, should be able to refuse to pay for health insurance benefits.
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." – Voltaire.

  4. #4
    inde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,014
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Smoking is the DEVIL!

  5. #5
    Judah Maccabee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    5,325
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    It's an interesting question. If an activity is legal, at what point can a company claim that it is so risky and inherently harmful that they won't cover it?

    Did you know that sailing is in insurance terms, more risky than football? In HS, we couldn't have an official sailing team because we couldn't secure insurance for it, while the school hockey team and football team enjoyed compensation and coverage. When a kid got his neck broken by a foul check after the buzzer, he was covered.

    The point I'm making is that it ends up going down a slippery slope of what constitutes inherently harmful activities. I'd hate to think that because my primary fitness methods are martial arts, my potential employer wouldn't cover my insurance costs.

    But I do think that companies have a legitimate, compelling interest in guaranteeing a healthy workforce.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,173
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Yes, but firing somebody for smoking away from work seems more than questionable.

  7. #7
    inde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,014
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    There is a history of this in the United States. Henry Ford comes to mind.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO