Smokers fired by healthcare company..

[sq764]

So what does everyone think about this?

Is this a unique stance by a company or is this infringing on rights?

[Show Me the Wire]

It is a little of both.

Read the big hubbus about the DRF changing policy in the middle of fully prepaid subscriptions. Now relate the same thinking to this stupid company policy.

You where hired by this company to do a job, no restrictions about your health habits of any kind. After several years of employment and supposedly competent service you are told you must comply with a company policy prohibiting from smoking on your own time.

Based on your employment you have made long-term financial commitments say a car payment, mortgage to buy a house, etc and how about medical coverage. Now after you made these financial commitments this moronic policy is put in place and you are fired because you are addicted to cigarettes. The economic harm this company caused to its employees by the changing the rules after the employment contract was entered into.

Totally different than the company telling any new hires if you work here you must agree not to smoke cigarettes, even when you are off the clock. If this was the case the employee bargained away his rights to legal behavior in exchange for the promise of employment.

What is more disturbing is the U.S. Supreme Court allowing drug sniffing dogs to search a car after a routine traffic stop.

I agree with President Bush we need to plant the Flag of Liberty and we better start replanting this Flag here in the U.S. again.

I gave an admonishment before about when you start limiting other people's rights to engage in activities you are givivng others to the permission to limit yours. We are heading down that slippery slope faster and faster each and every day. We better worry about giving rights back.

[Bobby]

Last time I checked it wasn't against the law to smoke.

So, that makes it against the law to be fired for smoking.

[sq764]

But I believe they all did sign a statement saying that they could be fired if they tested positive for smoking at any time.

[chickenhead]

You can get fired (at least here in CA) for any reason whatsoever, for no reason, it doesn't matter. And I more or less think that's the way it should be.

I am more perturbed by the city of San Fran banning smoking in all public areas -- parks, etc. We can't even smoke outside anymore? Can't smoke in bars anymore...pretty soon no drinking or talking either.

[Show Me the Wire]

Not according to my understanding. The fired people worked for the company previously to the policy change and did not sign anything at the time of the hiring.

This is not to say that they employees were coerced to sign such statements during instituting policy change. That tactic makes the company's actions even more disgusting than the DRF's actions.

Like I said it would be different if prior to hiring the company's policy was specifically addressed and the numb nut hiree agreed to it at that time.

[Show Me the Wire]

chickenhead:

RESPECTFULLY disagree. I can't be fired for crossdressing in areas of Califronia.

[Show Me the Wire]

city of San Fran banning smoking in all public areas -- parks, etc. We can't even smoke outside anymore? Can't smoke in bars anymore...pretty soon no drinking or talking either.

That is what I am talking about the limiting of individuals to do lawfull things in the privacy of their homes as well in public places.

BTW I believe it is the City of San Francisco that made it illegal to fire crossdressers. Talk about irony, limit rights of employers on who they can fire and limit rights on individual pursuit of liberty.

[chickenhead]

Clipped from legal-database.com

Unfortunately for at-will employees, you can get fired for any number of job-related, and non-job related reasons; for instance, your supervisor can fire you if he or she doesn’t like the clothes you wear, of if you tell lame jokes, or even if you simply rub your employer the wrong way.

(but I agree SMTW, things are changing all the time) Of course the standard non-discriminatroy statutes apply, but how does anyone know whether you got fired for cross-dressing, or because you tell lame jokes?

[Bobby]

Firing someone for smoking is discrimination, unless they signed something stupid like that. It's my understanding that Lot's of people try to quit smoking and fail. they're addicted and can't help it. That my 2 cents.

[Show Me the Wire]

chickenhead:

All the examples you cite are related to the work environment, not what you do at home. But some employers can't fire for your clothing ie. crossdressers at work. Safest way to job security crossdress for work. The employer would have a difficult time proving it fired you for some other reason.

[sq764]

My wife works at Weight Watchers on the weekends, running meetings. And anyone that works for them has to stay within a tight weight range or they can be fired..

[Show Me the Wire]

My wife works at Weight Watchers on the weekends, running meetings. And anyone that works for them has to stay within a tight weight range or they can be fired..

Is this restriction discussed with employees before they were hired? If so it does not apply. Why keep bringing up examples where both employer and employee made an agreement prior to the hiring?

I conceded in my original post to you it is different when the restrictions are discussed prior to the actual employment:

Totally different than the company telling any new hires if you work here you must agree not to smoke cigarettes, even when you are off the clock. If this was the case the employee bargained away his rights to legal behavior in exchange for the promise of employment.

The issue in this specific case relates to the employer changing policy after the employee has been hired and then telling the employee he must change his personal private habit indulged in the privacy of his home. It is an after the fact change, that is unfair. It is similiar to what the DRF di to its paying customers, at least the customers can get a refund of their money with the DRF. Nobody is going to make the mortgage payment for these employees.

Additionally, this bone head decision by this company increases the burden on the taxpayer. These people are elgible for unemployment benefits and will be collecting benefits until they find other gainful employment. This employer increased the tax burden for no good reasons.

[Show Me the Wire]

Bobby:

I told you when I disagreed with your views and so I will tell you when I agree.

I agree it is discrimination because smoking is an addiction, as well as a habit,

[chickenhead]

chickenhead:

All the examples you cite are related to the work environment, not what you do at home.

A very valid distinction.

[sq764]

Is this restriction discussed with employees before they were hired? If so it does not apply. Why keep bringing up examples where both employer and employee made an agreement prior to the hiring?

I conceded in my original post to you it is different when the restrictions are discussed prior to the actual employment:

Totally different than the company telling any new hires if you work here you must agree not to smoke cigarettes, even when you are off the clock. If this was the case the employee bargained away his rights to legal behavior in exchange for the promise of employment.

The issue in this specific case relates to the employer changing policy after the employee has been hired and then telling the employee he must change his personal private habit indulged in the privacy of his home. It is an after the fact change, that is unfair. It is similiar to what the DRF di to its paying customers, at least the customers can get a refund of their money with the DRF. Nobody is going to make the mortgage payment for these employees.

Additionally, this bone head decision by this company increases the burden on the taxpayer. These people are elgible for unemployment benefits and will be collecting benefits until they find other gainful employment. This employer increased the tax burden for no good reasons.
Playing devil's advocate.. You can drink in your own home, then drive to work and show up intoxicated... If you do so, you can be fired.. You can do the same with drugs...

[Show Me the Wire]

sq764:

I understand you are playing devil's advocate, but how do your scenarios remotely compare. The only thing in common is doing an activity at home. Additionally, anyone who did what you described would be breaking the law driving under the influence.

How can you compare the actions of an intoxicated person to those of someone smoking a cigarette?

If you want to compare apples to apples let's say you stopped at the OTB before you went to work in the morning and a co-worker saw you and reported your activity to the boss. The boss fires you for wagering on horses. Now that is a better scenario for devil advocate. Even better what if you wagered at home on your computer, assuming it is legal in your state?

How does moderate wagering at home and smoking at home give cause to you being fired if the restriction was not discussed and agreed to prior to your employment?

The answer is............ it doesn't.

[sq764]

What if you had a job delivering oxygen to emphysema patients? Would the smoke bother them?

[Show Me the Wire]

sq764:

Are we trying for the sublime or the ridiculous? I know smoking is prohibited around oxygen and not smoking around oxygen is a requirement of the job that is discussed prior to the hire.

What is your opinion about the wagering on horses at home? I think that is more the case of people participating on this board than delivering oxygen.

How about an answer to my hypothetical!

[sq764]

My response was meant to go farther to the extreme, but it was regarding your comment of:


"How can you compare the actions of an intoxicated person to those of someone smoking a cigarette?"

In the above scenario, the smoking has much more harm..

I think your hypothetical question is totally unrelated to what happened at this company..

[Show Me the Wire]

I think your hypothetical question is totally unrelated to what happened at this company..

Oh really. Your driving to work is more suitable? You answered my question about the direction of this thread.

What scenario do you think more than likely will collect unemployment benefits, being terminated for smoking at home or driving to work and reporting to work intoxicated?

Are you intoxicated now? I ask because the statements you are making.

I am not making any more distinctions for you about this bone head employer and this issue.

[sq764]

Oh really. Your driving to work is more suitable? You answered my question about the direction of this thread.

What scenario do you think more than likely will collect unemployment benefits, being terminated for smoking at home or driving to work and reporting to work intoxicated?

Are you intoxicated now? I ask because the statements you are making.

I am not making any more distinctions for you about this bone head employer and this issue.
If I want to get insulted, I will have a conversation with zilzal or Sec.. I thought we could have one without it, but I guess you're one of them..

Thanks for blowing the thread.. good day

[Show Me the Wire]

sq764:

I apologize for my uncivil behavior.

[sq764]

Cool..

Now, my point was that there are SOME jobs that require special circumstances that may put restrictions on people.. (athletes, actors, healthcare workers)..

Your point seemed to be that this is all well and good as long as it's clearly expressed before a person is hired and they agree to it..

With that being said, how can a company make a policy change and apply it to workers that have already been there for years? Grandfather all of them?

[Show Me the Wire]

Yep, grandfather them in, only fair thing to do. Just like zoning changes existing buildings and uses are grandfathered in.

BTW I understood your point about special circumstances long ago that was part of my fustration causing my improper venting.

I still do not see how you can say my hypothetical about wagering on racing at home is so different than smoking at home as far as innocuous behavior in the home effecting the work environment.

[sq764]

Well, I would be very interested to hear the company's basis and purpose for firing workers over smoking..

And then comparing that to betting at home..

[JustMissed]

Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Laws
I. What Are the Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination?
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination;
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older;
Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments;
Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the federal government; and
the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which, among other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces all of these laws. EEOC also provides oversight and coordination of all federal equal employment opportunity regulations, practices, and policies.

[Tom]

Correct me if I am wrong, but a contract that infringes on one's constitutional rights is null and void. Say I hire a guy and in his contract, he agrees not to vote. then he goes and votes. I fire him for breech of contract. I am pretty sure he will win that suit becasue the contract was illegal to begin with.

[Show Me the Wire]

Update on issue.

I believe this specific employer is located in Minneapolis. As a result of this specific employer's actions, a bill is being introduced to prevent terminating employees for lawfull personal habits done in the privacy of their home. It is my understanding their is strong support for passage of this bill in the legislature.

I hope this answers the question posed by sq764.