Should companies be able to fire employees that smoke?

[Daphne]

Should companies be able to fire employees that smoke?
......even on their own time to keep health costs down?

For information on the poll please check out here (http://www.channelcincinnati.com/news/4125477/detail.html)

[annieap]

That is CRAZY! Companies do not have the right to tell employees they cannot smoke on their own time. Smoking is not illegal and does not cause impairments. Being a nonsmoking facility is one thing but dictating what the employee does on their own time is another thing.

[Chuck]

People are entitled to working a smoke free environment. Thats about it. Smoking is not illegal nor is the consummation of alcohol.

This is a violation of an individual rights. Supporting this is the same as saying you can fire a person for driving a car that has a lower safety rating or for being overweight.

How about terminating everyone for eating habits. This would decrease insurance rates. Less heart attacks.

Not much else to say.

[Jeremy]

Just pointing out (as a smoker) that company's insurance rates go up based on the average health risk of it's employees. This increase filters down to each employee regardless of their actual health and costs the company serious money. Smoking is one of the largest costs in health care and one of the leading causes of health problems. While I don't have an answer, I do believe this issue goes beyond privacy and the right to do what you want in your private time because there are bleed throughs into the public arena. Many of us are naturally offended because we smoke, but imagine paying more because someone who works in the cubicle next to you smokes crack, or is constantly drinking themselves into liver problems. I don't believe that something as extreme as firing is necessary, but it makes sense to deny the person health coverage or make them pay a premium because their individual activities cost the group as a whole. IMHO, carry on.

[JaimeP10]

They absolutely do not have the right to fire anyone for smoking! Hello, the entire state of Kentucky would be unemployed! Although, I do need a vacation. Do you think you would qualify for unemployment for that?

[ljhitt]

I just quit smoking after 22 years in May, I am tickeled but I crave it everyday, Im glad i have the option. It is crazy to tell people what they can do on there own time. Company's do it everyday and get by with it though, Just think about it.

[rita_772005]

I think employee's should not be fired because they smoke they should have a assigned area to smoke , because it is a person's right to smoke or not to smoke. :)

[mark]

....................OK, since some has weighed in, it's my turn. I agree with most of the posts here but not because of the smoking vs non smoking issue. I could care less about that.

What bothers me is..........if a business can fire you for smoking & get away with it, what's next??

Could you possibly get fired for:

1. Having a large nose?
2. Wearing glasses or contacts?
3. Drinking coffee?
4. Driving a foreign automobile?

Do you get my drift??

If this holds up, business CAN fire you for anything & there's nothing you can do about it.

THAT's what scares me...................see ya Mark

[Chuck]

Exactly Mark.

I read another article about this company a day back. They now have their overweight employees going to a gym.

We will see where that goes.

[Eddie]

Very interesting topic!
I think there's one question un-answered with this thread:
Did the company have a non-smoking policy in place and someone lied to get the job? If so, I think yes they have a right to fire them.
If this is a new policy, I think the company would have to offer some stop smoking programs for employees prior to firing them.

I hear the arguments, and they are valid and are very supportive of the employees, must be a lot of UAW folks on this board. However I want to offer a diffrent view, one of the company. It should come as no surprise that US companies are working in a very competitive market, and a BIG part of their operating cost is health care, both insurance premiums, increased medical cost casued by smoking, including increased problems of smokers children, who have much higher rates of respiratory problems, and the fact that statisticly, smokers have a much higher rate of absantiesm than non-smokers. I think companies that are looking to the future, and hoping to maintain a competitive market place, have to start looking at these issues. Not just smoking but also the obesity problem we are facing in the US. I know this view is not "politicly correct", but I think it is the state of the economy we live in. I also think businesses that are not prepared to face, and manage these types of issues with health care in an agressive, and straight forward approach are setting themself up for future problems.
I don't mean to offend the smokers who have posted, just looking at it from a diffrent perspective.

[Chuck]

Very interesting topic!
I think there's one question un-answered with this thread:
Did the company have a non-smoking policy in place and someone lied to get the job? If so, I think yes they have a right to fire them.
If this is a new policy, I think the company would have to offer some stop smoking programs for employees prior to firing them.



I am relatively sure I am still in the good ol' US of A. Last I checked an employer was not allowed to regulate or 'Policy' my "Legal' at home practices.

When you are clocked in company policies are in effect. Once you clock out. they are done.


Not UAW here. I own the place. lol.. I practice what I preach.

I do have a line that includes off job activities. If an off job activities effect ones performance on the job which I am paying for then we have an issue.

As it pertains to Insurance, most all employer pass an expense of sorts to the employee.

So now the question would be, if the company is saving so much more on Insurance should the employees be compensated for the waged reduction?

Or is it just about the poor company.

[Eddie]

I don't think it's a matter of a insurance savings being returned to the employees, I don't think it's even a matter of the savings being returned to the company, I think it's a matter of, can a company continue to offer insurance benefits, and salaries if employee health care and associated insurance cost continue to rise. Perhaps I'm getting a little off the subject, and more into the insurance cost, but I do think there is a direct link in a lot of cases to smoking and medical insurance cost. I probably don't know enough about the case in question to speak about it specificly, but I do think companies have a right to control their cost, (if that is what they were trying to do?)and health care is a big cost.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for employee's rights, I myself an am employee, and not a business owner, But I think it boils down to simple economics, if drastic changes are not made soon, either by insurance companies, businesses, or the government, American employees are going to find themselves working with no insurance at all. I think we are going to see more of these type of issues across the county.

I recently read an article where an insurance company had refused to pay an injury claim because the driver of the car did not have on a seatbelt. The insurance company stated that the driver would not have suffered near the injuries had he had it on.... I don't know the outcome of that case, but it's clear the direction we're going.
Hang on tight, I think it's going to be a bumpy ride.

[Chuck]

No, you are not off topic and it is a good conversation.

I agree with employer rights do to speak but I believe they stop at the "clock".

Drinking Alcoholic Beverage kills people. Yet as long as the employee comes to work sober there is no issue.

Remember that Probation didn't work and it won't work with smoking.

There is a big "Moral" push that is allowing people to take rights away from others, Smoking is the new battle ground. It is firearms with the liberals.

It rolls down to the fact if we allow them to take the rights of one person they will work on taking the rights of the others.

Let say today it is smoking. tomorrow it is our weight the next day it is alcohol. Gun's and other rights will fallow suit.

Where do we the people stop this. We are "Spreading Freedom Like Peanut Butter" across the world while taking it away from ourselves.

[memanannysue]

From the other side. Have you ever smelled someone who has just smoked a cigarette? I smoked at one time and now regret it. My children and grandchildren suffered from my smoking. Where I work, employees that smoke must go outside. When they come back in, the stink is almost unbearable. Smokers are not nor will ever be considerate of non-smokers or the children they smoke around. We all wonder why there is so much asthma in the United States. Look at the smokers and you can be assured that they or someone in their family has asthma.

Some compare alcohol and smoking, there is no comparison. You don't blow alcohol in someone's face. And you surely don't breath it.

I say if you want to keep your job and be healthy, follow the rules.

If you don't care, look for another job.

[annieap]

Some compare alcohol and smoking, there is no comparison. You don't blow alcohol in someone's face. And you surely don't breath it.
You are right, there is no comparison...
Did you ever hear of someone killing an innocent child because he was driving a car under the influence of tobacco or choking on his own vomit because he smoked too many cigarettes? Or of someone beating his wife while he was under the influence of tobacco then calling in sick the next day because he was hung over from last night's tobacco binge? Or how about waking up one morning after a great BYOT(bring your own tobacco) party and not remembering the name of the person lying beside you?

The main point here though is that this company is contolling the lives of their employees on and off clock. Is my right to enjoy a nice cold caffeinated Mountain Dew next? Why not fire me because I need glasses or suffer from fibromyalgia?
I am with Chuck on this one, where do we stop this?

[memanannysue]

No comparison? How many accidents from lighting a cigarette while driving? How many accidents when that lit cigarette is dropped on the floor of the car and you have to reach for it and you swerve and hit somebody? How many are killed because they fell asleep with a lit cigarette in their hand? How many lit cigarettes are thrown out of a car window causing a fire? No one has to drink alcohol but if a person is in the vicinity of a lit cigarette, that person will be breathing that cigarette smoke whether he wants to or not and breathing second hand smoke is worse than smoking the cigarette. The cigarette residue remains on the smokers clothes to spread while walking for others to breathe. Read the statistics.

[Eddie]

Does anyone know if the ACLU has become involved in this yet? I can only imagine they are chomping at the bit to get in the fight.
I think regardless of where you stand on this one, it does boil down to the rights of people. I can see the argument of "whats next"?
I will leave it at this, I think smoking kills, I also think drunks kill. being a Volunteer firefighter/EMT, and responding to both wrecks involving drunks and also the homes of smokers, who are younger than 50 and can't breath without an O2 bottle, I will simply say anyone who trys to quit, I wish you all the luck in the world!
Both habits can be devastating to your health and the health of those around you.

[annieap]

My last word on this since it is getting off topic...no one that I know of has been killed by someone operating a motor vehicle while smoking. However, two of my very close family members lives were cut short because someone chose to drink and drive. One of those family members was a six year old child.
But the topic at hand is not which is the better of the two evils, it's whether we feel companies should be allowed to fire employees that smoke. And I stand firmly with my answer...NO!

[Jeremy]

Again, this is a communal question. Individual rights are the topic of this thread, but it is a miscategorization and doesn't apply.

If a company says that they have a policy against smoking because it increases their health rates, they are entirely within their right to do so. That is a communal thing because they operate the community of employees. Your choice as an individual is to choose whether you want to be a part of that community/company. If the rules of joining or staying in that community is to not smoke, you can either choose to 1) not smoke and stay/join, 2) smoke and hope you don't get caught, or 3) find somewhere else to work that allows you to smoke in your off-time. Those are your rights as an individual.

Of course being from the good ol' USA, you are probably thinking what say do they have in what we do when we are not at work? Well, it is because your actions affect the others in your community. When you chose to do something harmful to yourself and then go to the doctor and be thankful to only have to pay $25 of the entire bill, remember that the insurance company is picking up the remaining hundreds of dollars. And they are charging the company you work for this reduction. And the company you are working for is charging a little from everyone else in the company to pay the insurance company. Lighting up is not an individual act. Your smoking costs everyone else in your company. Again, think how you'd feel if the money you are spending for your health benefits at your company are going to the crack addict in the next cubicle.

Again, your choice is to work there or not.

Companies have always had a say in what we do when we are at home to varying degrees. It is the reason that there are "morality contracts" and celebrities being fired for their drug habits. If a movie company can't afford the million dollar insurance hike to hire a certain celeb that is out doing heroin, that celeb gets fired.

So where does it end? Can they fire you for your big nose? Again, it comes down to which of your individual actions reasonably affect the work community as a whole. Health problems have been shown to have direct causes on the insurance rates of companies. Smoking is not an uncontrollable disability like being in a wheel chair. Smoking is a choice that people make (remember I am a smoker too). I am an addict, but I could detox the same as any other smoker. I am too lazy and lack the will power to do so. Should everyone else I work with pay for my laziness? Obesity was mentioned as well here. Obesity is controllable to the degree where it is not a health risk. Should everyone else pay for your McDonald's habbit?

A big nose is not a controllable disability ;)

Now, to sum up my point. Working at a company is working in a community of others. You do not have a "right" to work at that company, it is a priviledge. In order to enter or stay in that community of others, you should not only respect but obey their rules. Where do your individual rights lie? It lies in your choice to enter that community or enter another community. If a company told me I couldn't smoke at home, I sure wouldn't want to work there.

What does being an American have to do with it? Not a darn thing. As Americans we have the right to privacy from our government, not our employers. We have the right to be a citizen and have the rights as a citizen bestowed upon us. There are God-given rights, and there are American-citizen rights. Working at Chucky Cheese is not one of those right.

[mark]

.....I'd like to expand a little on my earlier post:

....................OK, since some has weighed in, it's my turn. I agree with most of the posts here but not because of the smoking vs non smoking issue. I could care less about that.

What bothers me is..........if a business can fire you for smoking & get away with it, what's next??

Could you possibly get fired for:

1. Having a large nose?
2. Wearing glasses or contacts?
3. Drinking coffee?
4. Driving a foreign automobile?

Do you get my drift??

If this holds up, business CAN fire you for anything & there's nothing you can do about it.

I'm with a poster above, if a employee goes in knowing smoking isn't allowed & violates the rules, he knows the rules & risks being fired. I have no problem with that.

Where I have a problem with this is..........starting a policy like this with existing employees.
If the company wants a non-smoking policy, it should start with new hires & not existing employees.

A company shouldn't be allowed to change horses in midstream............see ya Mark

[tkcomer]

If they can fire you for smoking while off the timeclock, what’s next? That’s the real problem. To me, this is an underhanded way to get rid of older workers. That would save a company more money than insurance costs. And let’s not start on insurance. That’s just one of the sorry excuses companies used to keep women out of the workforce, because they have more “troubles.” A huge majority of people thought drug testing was a good idea. But it was just a small first step. 20 years later, we are discussing smoking. If companies succeed in this, you can betcha overweight people will be next. Liberals never rest.

[kdown]

[B]We live in a country where there is always someone or some group telling us how we should lead our lives.

[Eddie]

I have learned a little more about this specific case, and found some information that I think is relevant.
- the Company is sole proprietorship.
- The owner started warning employees well over a year ago that his policy was changing.
- The owner offered the employees everything from stop smoking classes to hypnotisim to help them stop, which by the way he offered to pay for as much help as they needed.
- he also offered them what I feel is a very valid reason, the fact that the health care insurance he was offering was becoming too expensive due to the smokers, and without this new policy, he would no longer be able to offer any of his employees coverage.
- The employees continued to ignore his request, and very few took advantage of his offers for help.
I think he was more than fair. I also think they, the smokers, made the choice, so they should live with it. It's time employees starting taking some responsibility for their own health and stop thinking every company in the US owes them something...

[mark]

...............in this case, after reading those statements Eddie, I totally agree with you. If the employer spent all that time, money & effort to help those employees & they STILL ignored it, it's deserved & they shouldn't be crying at all.

The employer has the right to fire them & rightfully so.............see ya Mark

[jmchilljack]

Well I Work In Lexington Where You Are Not Allowed To Smoke In A Public Building And This Was Done By The Mayor Along, She Said She Was Going To Save People From Thereself Or Something Like That, But From What People Have Said About Other Cities (now This Is Just Talk) Like Dever Or Close To It A Policeman Can Give You A Ticket For Smoking In Your Front Window. Apprently Its A Somke Free City Period. The Think I Want To Know Is When Did This Country Become A Russia Like Place Everyone Worries About Everyone Else, Just Worry About Yourself And Keep Your Noise In Your Own Buss. For These People It Will Be Hard Bt You Can Do It. This Country Was Found On Freedom But It Looks Like The City Officals In All Towns Want To Tell Everybody How When And Where, When Does It Stop.

[Eddie]

I know the newly established Lexington policy does ban smoking in resterants and bars, but for the most part I think smoking in public buildings have been banned for some time, and in most cities. I'm not sure, but I thought there was a vote by the Lexington city commision regarding the ban. It seems I can remember they had a few meetings regarding the ban prior to the law being passed. I think you're right, that the ban was her (the mayor's) idea, but I think it had to be approved at the city level. As far as Denver, I'm not that familiar, but that seems pretty drastic. However if there are children in the house who are exposed to the smoke, I'm not sure I'm against it. There is a mis-conception that children are the property of the parents, and therefore the parents have a right to expose them to second hand smoke. However that's not the case, children are individuales with the same rights that most people on this site have been so discussed spoken about being taken away. The children have a right to breath clean fresh air, even in their own homes.

[jmchilljack]

Eddie I Couldnt Agree More With What You Said About Children Your 100% Right And I Applad You For What You Say I Dont Somke Around My Kids For That Reason.

[Chuck]

Sound extremely right wing to me. Maybe a if we should bring back the Spanish Inquisitions?

We'll have a Modern day twist to it. Instead of torturing people to change their habits and beliefs we will make everything we don't like illegal and fine them to bankruptcy.

Might sound a bit extreem but this is the outcome, Rules that arel based on one groups opinions and don't benifiet

Sorta takes the "free" out of freedom when your that second class citezen that the rest of the world hates.

[Jeremy]

Sound extremely right wing to me.

I'd have to say it's left wing. Mostly because left wing is more government where right wing (conservatism really) is to leave things as the status quo. This is a bit more progressive governing, but in this case, of course, the government is replaced by the private employer, which would be privatization... which would be right wing... ah **** who cares? :)

[Chuck]

You right Jeremy. And I care. It was either saying right winged or moral majority. I had a hard time choosing.

My focus is on Govt. and the Insurance Companies. The same reason we have Seat Belt Laws.

Guns Harms and kill more people a day than Smoking or "Second Hand Smoke".
Alcohol Harms and kill more people a day than Smoking or "Second Hand Smoke".

I'm not saying that smoking does not harm or kill people. I am saying that this is another topic of Corporate Domination over the people and just happens to be on the hit list of the party in power.

Life is the leading cause of death. The choices we make will either slow this process down or speed it up but I assure you the end result is the same.

What is being questioned here is "Should Corporation be allowed to regulate our rights".
They did it with seat belts. They do it by sending Lobbyist with cash to congress everyday.

If the topic was about Smoking IN the work place I would have a different opinion.

This is about what you do when you leave work and if you think companies have a right to regulate it.

[acoolmom777]

The insurance thing has me puzzled…as a smoker and my hubby being a non-smoker, we know our insurance rates are different. But I pay the difference being a smoker if I want to be insured. So how my rates affect a non-smoker is what is puzzling to me.
As a business owner, (and my business is a little different) what you do “off” the clock does affect my business while you are on the clock. But theses are things I take in consideration before I hire you.
As for how I “as a smoker” treat a” non-smoker”, maybe I am a rare type, but I have always been considerate in that aspect. If I go to a restaurant, I sit in the smoking section. If it is a non-smoking restaurant, then I don’t smoke. If I am with a group of people, I have always ask if it will bother anyone, if I get one yes…then if I still want to smoke, I move or walk outside. I don’t “kiss” my hubby after I smoke, with out chewing gum or brushing my teeth. I don’t smoke in my house, because of my kids and the other kids I watch. I don’t like the smell it leaves on my clothes and breath, and I also hate dirty ole ashtrays. It is a nasty habit…one I am working on to break. But never the less I smoke. It is a choice I make and I have to take the consequences….
Each situation of all aspect of our lives are different…we have to chose what we as people want…is your job more important or your habit that could make you lose your job…. The choice is up to each individual. It seems that the employer we are talking about went out of his way to help his employees…there is only so much he can do…BUT… I am sure if he was a smoker, this problem would have never come up OR he would have taken the money he spent and built a “smoking room” with a ventilation system.

[Eddie]

With some larger companies who have several hundred or even thousand employees, the insurance providers have decided that the added risk of insuring smokers, coupled with the fact that not everyone is honest in their applications, claiming to be a non-smokers when in fact they are smokers, have raised the rates of everyone to the "smoker' rates. The insurance company that covers our factory doesn't even ask the question any longer, we all pay the same rates. As to the fact of the company owner being a smoker or not, I honestly don't know if he was or not, but I'm sure you're right, that would have made his chioce harder.
I've seen the addiction of smoking first hand, my mother smoked for 30+ yrs, and couldn't have stopped if she wanted. unfortunatly she died at 58 because of it....
Good luck in your efforts to quit. I pulling for ya!

[TheMan]

Many of us are naturally offended because we smoke, but imagine paying more because someone who works in the cubicle next to you smokes crack, or is constantly drinking themselves into liver problems.


We do....

[mark]

....WOW!! 93 voters in the poll with the majority going for the "No" vote.

Great responses to this thread.............see ya Mark

[FreeOurPOWs]

Absolutely not! I am not a smoker, but I believe in Liberty. Smoking is not illegal, YET, so leave these people alone. They already pay more for insurance, which they should based upon how insurance pools work, and they are exercising their FREEDOM to engage in a legal activity. Using the workplace as an extension of a "Brown Shirt Nazi", government backed, tool for social control is just plain wrong, at least in MY country! This latest attack against freedom in unbelievable. Don't fall for it!

[GirlColumbo]

well what about all the toxic fumes in some factories/ are they gonna fire the factory owners because of those, ie: paint thinners and such..............all the little fabric dust in sewing factorys............black mold, sick building syndrome is what is causing health cost to go up if you ask me.........

As a smoker, i try not to blow smoke in a non smokers face, and if my boss told me i could not smoke period, my stress level would sky rocket, have to go to the doc for some nerve pills, i think that would make medical cost go up.......