Ravenwood - 01/27/05 07:00 AM
In the face of apathy, anti-smoking bigotry marches on. Refusing to hire people who smoke is nothing new. I've been noting it for the better part of two years. But it is becoming much more common. The Lansing State Journal notes that Kalamazoo Valley Community College is also discriminating against smokers.
Would-be employees at Kalamazoo Valley Community College will have to choose between their cigarettes or their jobs, too. The college adopted a policy this month under which the college refuses to hire as full-time employees people who use tobacco during school hours or on leisure time. The idea behind the hiring change is based on health care costs, said Sandy Bohnet, vice president for human resources at the college.For those of you who don't think this will happen to you, here is food for thought. Reuters notes that Weyco, who recently fired 4 people for refusing to submit to intrusive testing to see if they smoked in their spare time, already has a plan for overweight workers. The owner admits that he would fire them too, except that Michigan law prevents him from doing so.
Next on the firing line: overweight workers.So Weyers would fire them, but he can't because of some silly law. So the next time some fatty gets a poor eval, or is fired for something frivolous (like not resetting the copy machine), he'll have to wonder if it was Weyer's blatant bigotry working behind the scenes."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.
But you do see the progression. Weyco started by not hiring smokers. Then people weren't allowed to smoke during work hours. Next thing you know, he's trying to test employees to see if they have nicotine in their system, and firing them for refusing to comply with his nannying. I'm a non-smoker, and I would still refuse to submit to such a test. If Weyer handed me a cup I'd probably throw it in his face. (If he's lucky, I wouldn't fill it up first.)
When it comes to these bans, the rules get progessively worse a little bit at a time. (Which is always the way these things work.) I don't doubt that Weyers doesn't have every legal right to do what he's doing. But that still doesn't mean he's not an asshole.
Related articles:
1984: Fired for being a smoker -- January 26, 2005
And why is this happening? Simple, because people no longer see healthcare as an exchange of goods for services, but an entitlement. Who ever "big brother" is, whether my employer or my state, my physical well-being is HIS problem. And everyone knows that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, which brings us to where we are today, getting what we asked for, good and hard.
Posted by: corncob at January 27, 2005 10:03 AMRarely do I find myself agreeing with you, but apparently the planets are aligned today....
I may be VIRULENTLY anti-smoking, but even I have to wonder at this slippery slope we seem to be headed down. You can argue that companies should not have to assume the health risks of those who voluntarily engage in a demonstrably risky behavior such as smoking. Of course, what about those who consume alcohol? Ride motorcycles? Rollerblade? Rock climb? Skydive? Engage in unprotected sex? If it sounds as if the list could be endless, it's because it could well be. So where does it end- or will it? How long before will it be before employers fire or refuse to hire those don't use their turn signals? Or vote Republican? (Hey, now THERE'S an idea whose time has come.... ;0) )
I am the last person you will ever find defending smokers or smoking, but I cannot abide the idea of employers having the right to exercise such an intrusive degree of control over the private lives and activities of their employees. Freedoms, once lost, are not easily recouped.
Posted by: Jack Cluth at January 27, 2005 10:05 AMOK, looks like you already covered what I was talking about in a previous post. Guess I should read the whole page before letting fly--who knew?
Posted by: corncob at January 27, 2005 10:13 AMI believe in the free market. This guy should be allowed to do whatever he want with his company. The flip side of this is that others have every right to not use his company because of the fact that he is an douche-bag.
We handle this a little differently at my company. My boss gives a fixed amount for the healthcare benefits for each individual (he is actually quite generous). If your individually calculated costs exceed this fixed amount, you pay the difference. If you are a fat-slob who chain smokes, more power to you, but you will pay the price. On the other hand, young, virile men such as myself actually get cash back (which gets dumped into a medical savings account).
Posted by: Nick Bourbaki at January 27, 2005 10:57 AMI agree completely. I'm just pointing out that this guy is a douche bag and that non-smokers shouldn't necessarily remain apathetic.
Posted by: Ravenwood at January 27, 2005 11:10 AMSadly, it is not illegal to be an asshole...
Smokers and non-smokers can fix this.
Boycott
Educate
Campaign
I dunno why but after reading this posting I kept having flashbacks to the movie Demolition Man.
Let me just say this, if all the restaurants are Taco Bell, I'm checking out.
Posted by: Ravenwood at January 27, 2005 2:30 PMI think the slippery slope argument is most persuasive on this. If you start going down the list of potential activities that could affect your health, certainly smoking and obesity are right up there. So are driving faster than the speed limit, non-monogamous sex (protection reduces, it doesn't eleminate the risk), taking a bath (do you know how many people slip in the bath tub?), etc. I agree that a system that treats people equally but lets them reap the rewards or losses due to their choices makes the most sense.
Posted by: yetanotherjohn at January 27, 2005 5:24 PMOTOH, you can minimize your pension costs by only hiring fat chain-smokers who frequently get speeding tickets on their motorcycles.
Posted by: markm at January 27, 2005 6:31 PMMarkm has a point, I'll consider this if I ever start a business. >:P
Posted by: Rhett at January 27, 2005 6:49 PMI'm all for Weyers' right to fire whomever he pleases, for whatever reason he wishes, be it just or not. It is his company, and who am I to step in and use legislation to force him to stop being a bigot? Let the fact that he has artificially limited his employee base hurt his bottom line, so his less bigoted competitors succeed in his place. But don't take away his freedom to discriminate however he wishes.
That community college, on the other hand, sounds like a government entity discriminating to push forward an agenda. Albeit the government shouldn't be in hte education business in the first place, there is no place in America for agenda driven governmental discrimination
Posted by: Pasty at January 28, 2005 12:42 PMSo is it illegal for him to deny benefits to those who smoke?
Posted by: Mays at January 28, 2005 3:30 PM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
