(no subject)

[electricland]

OK, I'm not a fan of smoking, but this? Is insane.

Comments

Wow

[themusesbitch.livejournal.com]

Considering smoking is still legal, how can firing people for smoking on their own time/in places where it's legal to do so POSSIBLY be legal?

[mrs-cake.livejournal.com]

I've been wondering whether that's legal or not. Since when is your employer allowed to control what you do in your spare time? Or am I missing something here?

Re: Wow

[mrs-cake.livejournal.com]

Hehe, you beat me to it. Glad to see I'm not alone.

[lilactime.livejournal.com]

I agree it's a little hard-assed, but I can sort of see the point he's trying to make. In the US, where employers who offer full health coverage bear the full brunt of costs associated with smoking, it seems reasonable to demand that the employees take some level of responsibility for their own health.

I'm trying to figure out whether or not it's a slippery slope

[themusesbitch.livejournal.com]

I have a friend in the US who can basically never leave his current insurance company, because he was involved in an accident which left him with several conditions which a new insurer wouldn't cover, as it's a "pre-existing condition" - I'm hoping that any kind of disability discrimination act would prevent this, but the smoking thing almost seems to be a step towards allowing employers to fire/reject employees with certain types of conditions based on insurance costs.

But that's probably an extreme example.

What about, for example, overweight employees? Could these lead to employers instituting exercise/weight/fitness requirements for their staff?

I mean, the next result of all of these things may well be good, given that the overall health and fitness of North Americans is slipping into an ever-more abysmal state... but it would be tricky to negotiate the terrain between individual rights and the greater good - especially in the US, where without socialized healthcare, it's more like individual rights vs. the interests of the employer/insurance company...

[gurudata.livejournal.com]

Hiho,

Yeah, I was watching an item on this yesterday morning where they were grilling the lawyer for the company. This kind of thing is actually illegal in 29 states but this wasn't one of them.

Cu,
Andrew

Re: Wow

[lawgeekgurl.livejournal.com]

most states are employment at-will, which means that you can fire someone for no reason at all, unless they have a contract taht entitles them to some protection (i.e., a "only for good cause shown" clause). If this is a private employer, not a government one, he can fire anyone he wants.

Re: Wow

[lawgeekgurl.livejournal.com]

see below to amberlynne

Re: Wow

[lawgeekgurl.livejournal.com]

er, that would be not amberlynne but someone completely else.

Re: Wow

[life-on-queen.livejournal.com]

most states are employment at-will, which means that you can fire someone for no reason at all, unless they have a contract taht entitles them to some protection

US laws are whack, yo.

No kiddin'

[themusesbitch.livejournal.com]

I'll just be over here in the corner, making out with the Canadian Human Rights Act....

Re: No kiddin'

[life-on-queen.livejournal.com]

Watch out for papercuts, dude.

Re: Wow

[erbie.livejournal.com]

They actually were fired for refusing to take a test that would show if they smoked. Though I imagine that they would have been fired if they failed the test anyway. And one of them quit rather than take the test.

Re: I'm trying to figure out whether or not it's a slippery slope

[lilactime.livejournal.com]

What about, for example, overweight employees? Could these lead to employers instituting exercise/weight/fitness requirements for their staff?

Eventually... I guess there is the potential for it. Or people with obvious weight issues just wouldn't be hired to begin with - I'm in Canada and know of someone who works for a temp agency who has a terrible time getting jobs because of her weight (close to 300 pounds). She finally had to file a complaint against the agent at the temp agency because he was overlooking her for assignments she was obviously qualified for.

It would be easy enough for potential employers to find a reason not to hire someone if it looks like that person would ultimately be a burden on the company's insurance premiums.

I don't know how legal it would ultimately be (remember, in the US, even many common office jobs require a urine test during the application process), but it's not a stretch for employers to demand that, if they're the ones footing the bill for an employee's health issues, that the employee do everything within their means to be as healthy as possible.

I don't know if the article referenced made mention of it, but I read somewhere that the company in question gave months and months of lead time to allow employees to quit smoking, and put a lot of company resources at their disposal to help them.

Unrelated but similar, there was a case here in Canada a year or so ago where a family doctor refused to see previous patients who he had advised to quit smoking. He gave them a time frame in which to quit and after that, began referring them to other MDs. His theory was that if the patients weren't willing to help themselves and take responsibility for their own health, then he wasn't willing to waste his time on them. He got away with it because he was able to refer them to another doctor.

Re: I'm trying to figure out whether or not it's a slippery slope

[lawgeekgurl.livejournal.com]

this particular employer has already said he is going to institute a fitness/anti-obesity policy also.

[skrymir.livejournal.com]

God. That's shocking.
The amount of power that American employers have over their workers is frightening.
I used to work in a pharmaceutical manufacturer where smoking was prohibited. You had to physically leave the site to smoke, and they were in the process of instituting a 'change of attire' rule for the people working in manfuacturing.
However, they legally have no ability to dictate what you do on your own time. You can smoke on a break, or at home. Your political views, hobbies, social activities and religion are irrelevant, provided you show up to work and do a full days labour.

Hell, you don't even have to provide an address - they legally have no right to ask. (though that's pushing the relationship).

Hell, on the subject of higher risk, are they going to fire male employees below the age of 24? They are a higher health risk accident and accidental death.

Thank God I'm not in America.

[electricland.livejournal.com]

Not to mention pregnant women... that's damn risky! You could die! Or your baby could be really sick!

[electricland.livejournal.com]

*guh*

Madness.

Re: I'm trying to figure out whether or not it's a slippery slope

[electricland.livejournal.com]

what are his views on pregnancy, do you know? Or is that covered?

[electricland.livejournal.com]

I can sort of see it too... but as others have said, where do you draw the line? Pregnant women are at higher risk for serious health problems. It's a fairly short step to screening for certain genes. Until smoking becomes illegal, I don't think it should be any of the employer's business...

or you could just consider it another argument for universal health coverage and let it go at that. ;)

Re: Wow

[electricland.livejournal.com]

jeez!

That seems very wrong.

Re: Wow

[electricland.livejournal.com]

my thoughts exactly...