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

[PeedeeShaolin]

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

[Mr. Mantis]

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

No they shouldn't.

[Thaiboxerken]

I agree. The employer, however, should be able to refuse to pay for health insurance benefits.

[inde]

Smoking is the DEVIL!

[Judah Maccabee]

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.

[Lights Out]

Yes, but firing somebody for smoking away from work seems more than questionable.

[inde]

There is a history of this in the United States. Henry Ford comes to mind.