http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/26/smoking.reut/index.html

Quit smoking or quit your job, company says
Overweight workers could be next

Thursday, January 27, 2005 Posted: 5:28 AM EST (1028 GMT)


CHICAGO, Illinois (Reuters) -- The owner of a Michigan company who forced his employees to either quit smoking or quit their jobs said on Wednesday he also wants to tell fat workers to lose weight or else.

A ban on tobacco use -- whether at home or at the workplace -- led four employees to quit their jobs last week at Okemos, Michigan-based Weyco Inc., which handles insurance claims.

The workers refused to take a mandatory urine test demanded of Weyco's 200 employees by founder and sole owner Howard Weyers, a demand that he said was perfectly legal.

"If you don't want to take the test, you can leave," Weyers told Reuters. "I'm not controlling their lives; they have a choice whether they want to work here."

Next on the firing line: overweight workers.

"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.

Last year, he banned smoking during office hours, then demanded smokers pay a monthly $50 "assessment," and finally instituted mandatory testing.

Twenty workers quit the habit.

Weyers tells clients to quit whining about health care costs and to "set some expectations; demand some things."

Job placement specialist John Challenger said Weyco's moves could set a precedent for larger companies -- if it survives potential legal challenges.

"Certainly it raises an interesting boundary issue: rising health care costs and society's aversion to smoking versus privacy and freedom rights of an individual," Challenger said.

So far no legal challenges have been made to Weyco's policies.

______________________________________________________

hmmm about 75% of me says this guy is doing the right thing, of which i have seen the perils of both first hand, but the other 25% of me wants to start smoking just to spite this guy (ok, so i dont work for him but you get the point hopefully)

does he have the right to run his business the way he wants to? hes not stopping you from being employed, you just have to pass his test. most jobs you have to take a personality test for, and if you fail that, they dont hire you, so is that company preventing social rejects from working, or are they making sure they get the right kind of worker in there?

So you can't fire an alcoholic because he has a "disease" (which is really an addiction) but you can fire a smoker because he has an unhealthy habit (which is really an addiction).

gotta love it

i've done a little bit of research on this and any person who has quit both will tell you that the smoking was way more of an addiction than alcohol. i don't understand why it's not considered a disease either. if you're a crack addict, do they consider that a disease? is alcohol the only addiction that is considered a disease?

in theory i agree with this guy's motives. he's probably sick of seeing people destroying themselves with cigarettes and bad diet...but you can't force a lifestyle change on someone like that. there has to be something illegal going on here.

I don't see how anyone can agree with his motives. Cigarettes are legal and people are allowed to make the choice to smoke or not to smoke. Agreeing with his motives basically says you're in favor of taking away another's choice because of your own personal beliefs. People should be free to make ALL choices for themselves, not just the ones others agree with.

well, he is paying for their health insurance, and has a vested intrest in it

If that's his rationale, he's just a cheap son of a bitch, but the reasons listed before weren't financial, they were personal.

If he's worried about cash flow, he should invest in some type of stop-smoking program for smokers and not just threaten firing.

the only justification I can see in this guy's actions are that he spearheads an insurance firm. And please, it' not that he gives a hoot as to the well-being of his employees (kudos to him if he actually does), but smokers, overweight individuals, etc...are a health risk and therefore require higher insurance. So he doesn't want to pay out. I can't blame him, if I ran that sort of business, or I worked at a hospital, I wouldn't want to see people puffing away as I walked in the building.

Anyway, my point is: is NOTHING sacred? do we exist in a society where we are so bound to our jobs, we can't even do what we like when we aren't working? I don't understand it. and it scares me a little. And I think this guy is a wonderful example of that.

on a semi related note, and i dont have an actual link, as i heard this on howard stern but here it is from his website



these two cases are a little similar in the fact that these are things people do when not on the clock. its a dicey gray area to say the least (from a employers stance)

If it doesnt affect their jobs or performance, then it shouldnt matter in the least.

I agree, but as insane as this guy is, if it's his company, he should be able to choose who he can and can't employ.

Sure, but once you hire someone there are rules about firing people.

Kind of. There is a point where it becomes discrimination.

What are some of those rules? I do understand that "different rules" apply to the right to hire and fire amongst private companies (the obvious one is an anti-discrimination policy), but I've never fully understood what those rules specifically are, and how they are allowed.

I see a distinction here of discrimination of what you do, not who you are. Whether that's allowed or not, I'm not terribly clear (see my above post), but I do think there is a distinction.

20 people quit. Launching an anit-smoking program in the office couldn't show results like that.

I agree though with the point that cigarettes are legal and a person has the right to choose to slowly choke themselves to death on tar. Would he fire someone if they liked to bungee jump or sky dive?? Those are risks to health.

There are really far too many to list and of course all have exceptions. SPHR is the certification for Human Resource personnel (I think that's the one). The rules governing this field are massive and vary from state to state, but the department of labor is a good place to start if someone is curious about the laws in their own state.

Now, I'd really like to think that it would be illegal to fire someone for partaking in a legal activity in their off time.

Where does this go next? Should people that skydive be fired? That's dangerous. How about checking out the driving records of office workers? If this is the new standard, I think it sucks.

We're on the same wavelength here.

Cuz weez smaht!!

I think if Ed was talking to the other guy about something work-related (and I assume he was since the guy was a co-worker and obviously not so good of a friend that he turned him inot his boss), then it was appropriate for him to be fired, even though it was done outside of the office and outside of office hours. He was acting in his work capacity, and should be treated as if he did it in the office on a normal day.

--PunkDavid