Support NeoGAF

[Willco]

Yeah, this guy is more than likely a crazy old dude who thinks graham crackers and Metamucil will keep you alive until the ripe old age of 150. But I'm not sure that what he's doing is ILLEGAL...which means we ought to be taking a hard look at our laws.

Except there are two problems with this exact case.

One, if you were hired before 2003 (the year he barred smokers from being hired) and you smoke, you might very well get a day in court since you were forced out of a job you had before this rule was created.

Second, obese people are actually protected under the law, which is why I think he's not really forcing them out like smokers and is somewhat threatening them for now.

He definitely won't win that battle.

 

[borghe]

You really are an idiot. It is discrimination. And he definitely won't win the obesity battle, since there are plenty of discrimination laws about obese people. When someone does something legal in their own time, and it does not disrupt the workplace, this is very much an act of discrimination. People who do not perform to company standards can be canned because there's a level of performance to be attained at any workplace.

it is always the dumbest of the dumb who goes around calling everyone idiots. discrimination in the workplace is clearly definied as discrimination based on race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, and disability (which illnesses and obesity qualify under). This doesn't fall under any of those. This is a choice that someone is clearly able to make to keep their job with no detriment to them.

Some people are incapable, whether you want to believe it or not. Especially elderly people who started smoking before cigarettes had filters. It's not just a case of giving them a box of Nicoderm and trying hard. It really can break them.

bullshit. stop making excuses you fucking enabler. I never said it wasn't hard, but stop saying that it is ok if someone just doesn't have the will to stop.... fuck...

you have yet to show one single bit of proof on how exactly this is illegal... it isn't anymore illegal that random drug testing, simply because proof of having used drugs is not illegal. There is nothing illegal about a drug test coming back positive, yet employers fire people on those grounds all the time.. how is this any different?

But no, yet another cause for you liberals to come back on and say "WHERE ARE MY RIGHTS?"

They're at the burger king down the block. and yes I WILL take fries with that.

 

[Willco]

it is always the dumbest of the dumb who goes around calling everyone idiots. discrimination in the workplace is clearly definied as discrimination based on race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, and disability (which illnesses qualify under). This doesn't fall under any of those. This is a choice that someone is clearly able to make to keep their job with no detriment to them.

It's actually the dumbest of the dumb that don't do things like form complete sentences or capitalize words. Your first post was a mess of words and it barely made sense. StOoGe(sp?) somehow spelled out your entire point and made sense. Nobody is without their flaws, but - damn! - make your posts somewhat comprehendable. Idiot.

bullshit. stop making excuses you fucking enabler. I never said it wasn't hard, but stop saying that it is ok if someone just doesn't have the will to stop.... fuck...

:lol

I like how I gave you a demographic, which is elderly people who started smoking before filters, before the warnings, before we knew it was bad and you ignored it. These people are damn addicts, man.

I've seen old people let themselves die rather than be put in a hospital bed for life-saving surgery because you can't smoke in hospitals. Seriously.

you have yet to show one single bit of proof on how exactly this is illegal... it isn't anymore illegal that random drug testing, simply because proof of having used drugs is not illegal. There is nothing illegal about a drug test coming back positive, yet employers fire people on those grounds all the time.. how is this any different?

First, depending on what state you live in and your contract with your employer, your employer may not be able to fire you if they find illegal drugs in your system. Many employers offer counseling and help for their employees.

But drug testing has nothing to do with why this may be illegal. Firing someone on the grounds that they participate in a legal activity in their privacy of their own homes, which does not disrupt their workplace or effect their level of performance, may very well be illegal.

But no, yet another cause for you liberals to come back on and say "WHERE ARE MY RIGHTS?"

They're at the burger king down the block. and yes I WILL take fries with that.

By God! I think I've just been referred to as a liberal. You hear that Hitokage? Maybe after we're done mopping the floors at Burger King, you and I can go have a tofu burger!

 

[borghe]

It's actually the dumbest of the dumb that don't do things like form complete sentences or capitalize words. Your first post was a mess of words and it barely made sense. StOoGe(sp?) somehow spelled out your entire point and made sense. Nobody is without their flaws, but - damn! - make your posts somewhat comprehendable. Idiot.

if we were actually typing out prose or business reports I would agree with you, but I am arguing on an internet message board in between moving sites over from a Frame network to various VPN locations across north and south america.. forgive me if I don't cross my t's and dot my i's...

I like how I gave you a demographic, which is elderly people who started smoking before filters, before the warnings, before we knew it was bad and you ignored it. These people are damn addicts, man.

I never said they weren't addicted... people who have only been smoking for six months are addicted. that doesn't change a god damn thing. quit.

I've seen old people let themselves die rather than be put in a hospital bed for life-saving surgery because you can't smoke in hospitals. Seriously.

and you call me stupid...

First, depending on what state you live in and your contract with your employer, your employer may not be able to fire you if they find illegal drugs in your system. Many employers offer counseling and help for their employees.

Yes, I know this, I was just providing a comparison that in this case is quite apt. In most places of employment you won't be fired for smoking outside of work also. but we aren't talking about most places in either scenario. we are talking about specific cases.

But drug testing has nothing to do with why this may be illegal. Firing someone on the grounds that they participate in a legal activity in their privacy of their own homes, which does not disrupt their workplace or effect their level of performance, may very well be illegal.

but what qualifies as disrupting? causing higher insurance rates for everybody could possibly be considered disruptive.. coming to work smelling like an ashtray could possibly be considered disruptive. hell, there are a number of things that if a creative legal mind wanted to could probably come up with on why this is disruptive...

anyway, I am not a legal analyst... this could sure enough be considered illegal down the road... I am simply saying that there is no precident to flat out call this illegal... as for my views on it.... gee... someone trying to force people to lead healthier and likely happier lives.. SUE THE FUCKER!!!!!

 

[border]

Particularly for people over 50 or 55, finding a new job at a professional level can be very very difficult. These are the same people who would have the hardest time quitting cigarettes. To say "Well they can just go work somewhere else!" is ignorant and kind of asshole-ish. It's hilarious to hear the same unsympathetic folks whine about secondhand smoke.....if you don't like it, why don't you just go hang out somewhere else? :lol

If you got fired for this, you would be fired for failure to comply with company policy which probably means you wouldn't be able to collect unemployment either. At the very least they should have a grandfather clause that would allow current smokers to stay employed but make sure that new hires are non-smokers.

I can't believe some people are so sickeningly complacent about a company that wants to run their lives for them.

The insurance thing is just a cop-out. Insurance companies discriminate in ways that no employer can. If it would be cheaper to have the company staffed by white females under the age of 30, would it be okay for them to fire anyone who wasn't a white girl?

 

[Hitokage]

The man is a total asshole and deserves to be better acquainted with the front side of a bus, but I'll agree that if he's pulling this with at-will employees he probably hasn't broken any laws.

 

[Apharmd Battler]

Although arguing over this specific example is amusing, there are much larger issues at play which deserve discussion far more. (It's what I get for dating a labor attorney...this kind of stuff comes up over dinner a lot.)

1) Many employees in this country are "at-will" employees, meaning that the employer can fire them for ANY reason which does not violate discrimination laws. When you sign an employment contract, it usually contains a provision that you may be fired at any time, even if they bother to list specific examples of reasons why your employment would be terminated.

2) Protected classes against discrimination are specified in the law, and smokers are not a protected class at this time AFAIK. There is no legal obligation to accommodate smokers' needs in the workplace (mandatory breaks for smoking, etc.), and firing a smoker is not grounds for a discrimination lawsuit.

3) There are plenty of other employers which have <AHEM> "interesting" clauses in their employment contracts. Many employers have personal appearance/presentation standards -- a famous example is the Disney rule against facial hair. If you think the Disney rule is OK, then couldn't you also argue that smelling like smoke would cause a negative reaction in the customer, and therefore be against presentation standards? Another example: Wal-Mart has an morality clause in their contracts which basically says that if you do anything they consider to be immoral in your off-duty time, you will be fired for it. If you think that rule is OK, then you should probably agree with the no-smoking clause since THAT behavior is far more closely tied to negative work performance (more sick days, potentially less productivity at work, etc.) than, say, being promiscuous or whatever it is that pisses Wal-Mart off.

Yeah, this guy is more than likely a crazy old dude who thinks graham crackers and Metamucil will keep you alive until the ripe old age of 150. But I'm not sure that what he's doing is ILLEGAL...which means we ought to be taking a hard look at our laws.

I think you summed everything I was going to interject into this thread. If it's a private company and these people signed contracts, the old buzzard pretty much has free reign, whether we agree with it or not. If it's a public company then it should be up to the board of directors or the sharholders. I should call my lawyer pal and ask him, but I'm reallyl not that concerned about how some guys wants to run his business.

 

[Tazznum1]

I want to know if he passes on the savings to the remaining smoke free employees.

He can do whatever he wants, but I just now understand work related shootings a bit more.

 

[Dilbert]

Speaking of labor attorney GF, I just posed these questions to her:

Random strange questions: Can legal behavior in your private life (e.g.
smoking) be grounds for dismissal from a job? If so, can the employer test
employees for compliance (e.g. urine test), or would the behavior have to be
discovered through non-intrusive means (e.g. observing an off-duty employee
smoking in a restaurant you happen to be visiting)? Would this kind of clause
have to be specified upfront in an employment contract, or could the employee
have to follow the rule if it was implemented, say, a year or two after they
were hired?

Yes, if the restriction is reasonably related to the job. Generally, private employers have more leeway with placing restrictions on their employee's out of work activities.

Example: Employer has an anti-fraternization policy. It is there because they want to avoid problems at work. Employee 1 & 2 are dating outside of work and both can be fired for the behavior.

Example: Employer does not hire smokers. Smoking is not a protected life activity. Employer tells employees they can not smoke. Employer can test for smoking and fire employee for smoking or any other non discriminatory reason.

If you do not have a contract that says you can only be fired for cause, or misconduct, an employer can fire a private employee at anytime. They can make certain tests conditions of employment. It is a little harder to do those things in public employment. Employers can change the terms and conditions of employment at anytime, unless their is a contract.

 

[border]

"We have to work on eating habits and getting people to exercise. But if you're obese, you're (legally) protected," Weyers said.

I really do love that :lol

"You guys are going to have to start eating better! Or eating a whole lot worse! Take yer pick"

 

[borghe]

Particularly for people over 50 or 55, finding a new job at a professional level can be very very difficult. These are the same people who would have the hardest time quitting cigarettes. To say "Well they can just go work somewhere else!" is ignorant and kind of asshole-ish. It's hilarious to hear the same unsympathetic folks whine about secondhand smoke.....if you don't like it, why don't you just go hang out somewhere else? :lol

but the point is that I AM forced to go somewhere else if I don't want to deal with secondhand smoke... that is what I am saying.. they have been forcing me to deal with it or go somewhere else for years... nice to see a little payback coming their way... it may make me an asshole for saying so, but to not be able to go to a club or bar without smelling like an ashtray.... well, excuse the lack of sympathy please.

If you got fired for this, you would be fired for failure to comply with company policy which probably means you wouldn't be able to collect unemployment either. At the very least they should have a grandfather clause that would allow current smokers to stay employed but make sure that new hires are non-smokers.

I disagree... what they SHOULD do however is pay for people to enroll in programs or for x many months of patches per person. I do agree that forcing people to quit an addicitive substance cold turkey without any other compensation or consideration than to "keep your job" is bad form. Though I thought I remember reading that he did provide programs and stuff for people to quit.

I can't believe some people are so sickeningly complacent about a company that wants to run their lives for them.

I don't see this as running their lives. It is making an attempt to better their lives. You can argue about privacy issues or legalities all you want and there is merit to both sides, but no matter how you cut it the end result is that they would have healthier lives by complying. I can't believe people are so up in arms to defend people's rights to harm themselves.

The insurance thing is just a cop-out. Insurance companies discriminate in ways that no employer can. If it would be cheaper to have the company staffed by white females under the age of 30, would it be okay for them to fire anyone who wasn't a white girl?

sad but true... but to the question at hand, no it wouldn't be ok for that because obviously that would violate no less than three discrimination laws.. lol... make that a 30 year old parapalegic muslim lesiban and I think you covered them all... this is not discrimination by any legal definition of it... but you are entirely right... insurance companies definitely discriminate like no one else in the country is legally allowed to...

 

[demon]

I really do love that :lol

"You guys are going to have to start eating better! Or eating a whole lot worse! Take yer pick"

 

[border]

but the point is that I AM forced to go somewhere else if I don't want to deal with secondhand smoke... that is what I am saying.. they have been forcing me to deal with it or go somewhere else for years... nice to see a little payback coming their way...

This "eye for an eye" mentality is idiotic. If that's where your sense of justice is then I suppose there is no point int arguing. Though you blazed past what I thought was the more important point -- d'you really think it's fair to tell someone who is 10 years from retirement (and has perhaps paid a good deal into a pension plan) that they have to start a whole new career somewhere else....just because some other smokers somewhere else made you cough in a bar?

"Go work somewhere else" is a lot easier said than done.

I don't see this as running their lives. It is making an attempt to better their lives.

He is attempting to improve their health by running their lives. Whether or not their lives are legitimately better is hardly your judgment to make. You can live healthy and still not be as happy as you were when you had unhealthy vices.

It's not people's "right to harm themselves" that is the main concern, so much as it is their right to do whatever legal activities they please when they're not on the job. You have some kind of chip on your shoulder about smoking and it's preventing you from seeing larger ramifications. Imagine if the guy were banning whatever vices you have...

 

[Tazznum1]

A family friend of ours years back lost about 75 pounds or so. Got a boyfriend and was living lovely for about a month until she was pretty much decapitated on a motorcycle.

Good thing she lost that weight.

 

[borghe]

This "eye for an eye" mentality is idiotic. If that's where your sense of justice is then I suppose there is no point int arguing.

Well frankly I feel this is being overly simplistic and entirely too forgiving of that actual point. Why is it ok for smokers to smoke and poison whomever they want but it is a trvesty for people to start curbing smoking?

Though you blazed past what I thought was the more important point -- d'you really think it's fair to tell someone who is 10 years from retirement (and has perhaps paid a good deal into a pension plan) that they have to start a whole new career somewhere else....just because some other smokers somewhere else made you cough in a bar?

But that is blazing past the point that they DO have a choice to QUIT. He did not say "All smokers are fired today." He said you have to quit. There is a huge difference there. Would I be behind him for firing all smokers on the spot? HELL NO!! But he didn't do that. He gave them a choice. So do I really think it is fair to tell someone who is 10 years from retirement to quit smoking or find a new job? Yes. The ball is then in their court.

"Go work somewhere else" is a lot easier said than done.

As someone whose wife is looking for a job.. tell me about it... However, that isn't there only option, now is it?

He is attempting to improve their health by running their lives. Whether or not their lives are legitimately better is hardly your judgment to make. You can live healthy and still not be as happy as you were when you had unhealthy vices.

Your last statement is true, but we have really different definitions of "running lives." My woman isn't running my life by telling me I can't have affairs. She isn't running my life by telling me I had to give up pot when my daughter was born. She was saying "Hey, I am not going to put up with this. Quit it or leave." A simple choice. That is all that is going ojn here. They can keep sucking on those cancer sticks all they want.. Running their lives IMHO is not giving them that choice. You HAVE to give them up. There is no option to keep doing it.

It's not people's "right to harm themselves" that is the main concern, so much as it is their right to do whatever legal activities they please when they're not on the job. You have some kind of chip on your shoulder about smoking and it's preventing you from seeing larger ramifications. Imagine if the guy were banning whatever vices you have...

but that is sweetening it up because at the end of it you are still talking about peoples' rights to harm themselves. I am all for peoples' rights as much as the next guy.. really.. and I will fight for someone's right to smoke cigarrettes just as much as I will fight for someone's right to smoke pot. But their right to smoke isn't being taken away here. They still have that same right. Sure they can't do it while working at the place in question, but then that is their choice to work there.

I will agree though as I said that I believe or at least hope that he sunk some money into this to help people actually quit. IF he did then I think this is perfectly fine. If in the off chance he did tell everyone "You better quit tomorrow.. how you do it is your problem." then I say string him up....

 

[NetMapel]

I don't understand how people can get addicted to something that is clearly harmful for both you and the people around you. I hate it whenever I walk out of a building only to be greeted by strong smokes and people who are blowing their smokes right to your face. Tobacco should have been banned a long long time ago.

If you are trying to argue with points like "why don't we ban cars for producing carbon monoxide ?", you clearly have a mind of a three-year-old.

As for obesity, unless it is some form of genetic problem, companies should definitely help promote healthy food choice and have some sort of system in place to help obese people to lose weight. Oh, and before you get into the arguement about banning of short or tall people or any of that kind of stuff, know that there are no health risk involved in being short or tall

 

[Tazznum1]

No health risks for being short or tall? Yes there are, but they are for the extremes.

 

[border]

Running their lives IMHO is not giving them that choice. You HAVE to give them up. There is no option to keep doing it.

By that mentality, it is impossible to "run anyone's life" unless you threaten them with death or torture. What's the point of even using the phrase if it's gonna be so exclusive? Running people's lives is forcing them to do something they don't want to do (and reasonably shouldn't have to do) by imposing a hefty penalty.

This guy is threatening people with a significant economic penalty....but what's more than that is that he's going beyond an area that employers should be allowed to dictate. A wife or girlfriend, by the very nature of your relationship, has far greater necessity to make you compromise areas of your personal life because she's a part of your personal life. Trying to compare the two is a little ridiculous.

but that is sweetening it up because at the end of it you are still talking about peoples' rights to harm themselves

No, it's not "sweetening it up", it's just seeing the larger picture. People should be able to do whatever they want to in their off-time. Particularly if it is a LEGAL activity.

 

[border]

If you are trying to argue with points like "why don't we ban cars for producing carbon monoxide ?", you clearly have a mind of a three-year-old.

Well you probably take in about as much carbon monoxide in a parking garage as you do walking in to the front door of a building. If people are actually blowing smoke directly into your face and you are standing there taking it, you need to get a backbone...

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

there isnt a K-BAR sharp enough to cut this guy with......

 

[Willco]

I don't know what's worse...

People who smoke or people who are so vehement against those who smoke. I pick the latter.

 

[Pimpwerx]

Willco has held down this thread pretty good all by himself. If you think someone can get fired for smoking a cigarette at home, then you are fucking nuts...period. Out of your goddamn mind. I can understand banning smoking at work. I can understand piss-testing people to determine if they need to pay a higher health insurance premium. But piss-testing someone and firing them b/c they smoke a legal product in the privacy of their own home is idiotic. And if this story is true, there are probably a bunch of lawyers prepping some discrimination suit against this guy. Unless it's written in a contract that employees agree to never smoke or get fat (I mean...wtf is that shit all about), then this guy deserves every lawsuit that's coming his way. I smoke, but I'm not fat either. I don't hold people in contempt for their habits. I'd like to think it's someone's civil liberty what they put into their bodies. It's one thing to fire someone for testing positive for illicit drugs, but for ciggies? I'd ash out in this douchebag's eye. That's the biggest load of bullshit I've heard this week. PEACE.

 

[totoro'd]

I just wish they could change cigarette smoke somehow, maybe make it smell like roses or vanilla musk, y'know? Every time I go to a bar, my hair smells like smoke for literally days after, no matter how many times I wash it. What's up with that? If it smelled like something nice, then I wouldn't mind.

relevance to this topic: zilcho

 

[Phoenix]

Hard to have a legal challenge on this. Unless you're a protected 'classification' of employee, your employer can perform all sorts of testing on you including credit checks, drug tests, etc.

 

[Phoenix]

That's called discrimination, retard.

Smoking is addictive and some people can never quit. It's a horrible habit, I don't condone it, but telling people that they can't smoke a cigaratte in their own homes (which is very much legal) is insane.

You can't dictate what people legally do in the privacy of their own homes or on their own personal time if it's not disrupting the workplace.

Actually you can. Credit checks and drug tests (which are reflections on your personal life) have been withheld by the courts for reasons to restrict hiring or to fire employees. At will employees are, within reason (and I think this will hold based on past cases), allowed restrict employee behaviors. You can be fired for acting an ass at a football game if your boss finds out. You can be fired for a whole host or reasons and its even worse if the company has less than 100 employees because then they fall into a less regulated group.

 

[lachesis]

This thread made me smoke 2 cigs already. damn you all.

lachesis

 

[Willco]

Actually you can.

Not really. It depends quite honestly.

Credit checks and drug tests (which are reflections on your personal life) have been withheld by the courts for reasons to restrict hiring or to fire employees.

While drug tests have been upheld, you have to consent to one in your initial interview process or contract. Credit checks are still in the courts. I know many companies have started to really push for credit checks and many more want to make it standard, but it's still being litigated to hell and high water and I have no way of knowing how that'll pan out.

It's also something you have to agree to before you take your job.

At will employees are, within reason (and I think this will hold based on past cases), allowed restrict employee behaviors. You can be fired for acting an ass at a football game if your boss finds out. You can be fired for a whole host or reasons and its even worse if the company has less than 100 employees because then they fall into a less regulated group.

These are things in your contract that you sign, and everyone should go over that. A couple of problems here is that this guy is enforcing a rule that runs people out of their jobs that was created well after they were initally employed.

Also, obese people are protected, which is why he's not pulling a similiar stunt and just threatening them. I'm sure it's an unfriendly place to work at if you're overweight, though.

 

[Rlan]

There are, of course, certain jobs where they do exactly this, mostly trucking. There was also a story about a rental company which charged a customer two $75 charges (possibly more) for going over the speed limit.

In related news, San Francisco wants to ban smoking in certain city-owned outdoor public areas, such as parks...

Actually, the parks Idea is a good one. It wouldn't be so much about the "Oh god, they're smoking!" problem, but the amount of cigarette butts you'd find on the ground there is probably very high. Not many smokers I know can be arsed finding a bin for that stuff when they're outside.

 

[Phoenix]

These are things in your contract that you sign, and everyone should go over that. A couple of problems here is that this guy is enforcing a rule that runs people out of their jobs that was created well after they were initally employed.

I'm sure you will read that you are an 'at will' employee and can be fired without warning at any time in your 'contract'. He's actually doing this the nice way - he could, legally I would add, just start firing everyone who smokes. Your employer can be a real asshole about hiring you and keeping you hired.

 

[Willco]

I'm sure you will read that you are an 'at will' employee and can be fired without warning at any time in your 'contract'. He's actually doing this the nice way - he could, legally I would add, just start firing everyone who smokes. Your employer can be a real asshole about hiring you and keeping you hired.

I am actually an at will employee, but I also don't work at Weyco Inc., the company in question. Doing a little research shows that new employees have to agree to the policy before being hired, but I still don't know what the pre-2005 employee agreement looks like.

Hiring and firing policies can vary drastically depending on your employer and state. There is no general response.

 

[Phoenix]

I am actually an at will employee, but I also don't work at Weyco Inc., the company in question. Doing a little research shows that new employees have to agree to the policy before being hired, but I still don't know what the pre-2005 employee agreement looks like.

Hiring and firing policies can vary drastically depending on your employer and state. There is no general response.

Not sure of any states of the US that don't honor "at will employment" outside of federal requirements to the contrary.

 

[Willco]

Not sure of any states of the US that don't honor "at will employment" outside of federal requirements to the contrary.

I didn't say they weren't honored. I said we didn't know if Weyco had an at will employee agreement in place, and we still don't.

This is the real reason why this was allowed to occur:

There are 29 states in the country that provide legal protection to smokers against employment discrimination, but Michigan is not one of them. Weyco’s attorneys researched the potential legal risks of the policy, primarily as they might come from the Americans with Disabilities Act, and gave management the go-ahead to implement the policy.

Blame Michigan!

 

[Phoenix]

I didn't say they weren't honored. I said we didn't know if Weyco had an at will employee agreement in place, and we still don't.

Unless you have a contract that specifies that you cannot be fired for reasons x,y, and z, by law you are defined as an at will employee. That's just the law and if your employer doesn't place various restrictions on you you're automatically defined as an independent contractor. You don't have to have an agreement in place to be considered an at will employee - only other countries like Japan and Germany have a different default status (and Germany in particular makes it REALLY difficult to just fire employees off the cuff).

This is the real reason why this was allowed to occur:

Blame Michigan!

Smoking AFAIK is not considered a disability nor is it required for any type of disability. But anyways if your boss walked into to your office tomorrow and said 'you're fired' there is very little you can do about it. At best if you're in a protected classification you can bring about some form of federal discrimination case, but at will employees (which is the default for the majority of fulltime employees in the US) can be fired without reason at any time. You can come to work and find your shit in boxes on the street with a pink slip attached.

 

[Willco]

Unless you have a contract that specifies that you cannot be fired for reasons x,y, and z, by law you are defined as an at will employee. That's just the law and if your employer doesn't place various restrictions on you you're automatically defined as an independent contractor. You don't have to have an agreement in place to be considered an at will employee - only other countries like Japan and Germany have a different default status (and Germany in particular makes it REALLY difficult to just fire employees off the cuff).

I'm pretty sure there's a big difference between an employee agreement and contract, where the agreement is at-will and the contract cannot be broken unless under specified infractions.

Smoking AFAIK is not considered a disability nor is it required for any type of disability.

I didn't say it was. I said the reason why Weyco went through with this was because Michigan is not one of the 29 states with anti-smoking discrimination laws.

However, they are lawyers ready to challenge this type of practice with the ADA laws. You can debate this all day long, but neither of us really have the answer because it'll be a court matter.

But anyways if your boss walked into to your office tomorrow and said 'you're fired' there is very little you can do about it. At best if you're in a protected classification you can bring about some form of federal discrimination case, but at will employees (which is the default for the majority of fulltime employees in the US) can be fired without reason at any time. You can come to work and find your shit in boxes on the street with a pink slip attached.

At will employees cannot be fired because they're black, obese, impaired, etc. Y'know, protected by law. Sure, the employee can fire you, but you can then take your employer to court and sue. And likely win if there's a hint of discrimination.

 

[Phoenix]

At will employees cannot be fired because they're black, obese, impaired, etc. Y'know, protected by law. Sure, the employee can fire you, but you can then take your employer to court and sue. And likely win if there's a hint of discrimination.

But anyways if your boss walked into to your office tomorrow and said 'you're fired' there is very little you can do about it. At best if you're in a protected classification you can bring about some form of federal discrimination case, but at will employees (which is the default for the majority of fulltime employees in the US) can be fired without reason at any time. You can come to work and find your shit in boxes on the street with a pink slip attached.

Secondly (and speaking from experience of working with someone who was fired in a discriminatory manner), you'd be surprised how far you have to go to actually prove discrimination. You can't just say "I'm black therefore they fired me because I was black", you and your attorney have some significant work to do if you don't have specific documentation of behaviors and actions that would illustrate that race was a factor in your being fired.

However, they are lawyers ready to challenge this type of practice with the ADA laws. You can debate this all day long, but neither of us really have the answer because it'll be a court matter.

That it will depend on the circumstances of the situation is true, everything else you learn as a law student.

 

[rs7k]

I don't understand how people can get addicted to something that is clearly harmful for both you and the people around you. I hate it whenever I walk out of a building only to be greeted by strong smokes and people who are blowing their smokes right to your face. Tobacco should have been banned a long long time ago.

Then you obviously have no clue about addiction. "I'm gonna be smokefree from now on." is a lot easier to say than it is to actually do.

Today, I blew my quit attempt. I went for six days, and I had a strong craving. Your willpower basically turns off once you get a craving. You forget all the reasons you had for quitting. Addiction is considered by some to be a mental illness. As I'm relapsing for the 20th or 30th time, I am beginning to agree with some of these people.

I don't care if it's legal to fire smokers in the U.S., it's just so immoral. What's so disturbing is the notion that your employer basically owns you and your private life.

Thank God for Canada.

 

[miyuru]

Perhaps some of you, non-smokers think smokers are fucking annoying - but constantly whining non-smokers are even more annoying.

:lol, I don't smoke but I sorta agree. I have friends who smoke, I have friends who don't smoke. They're still my friends, I couldn't care less (regarding their personalities, etc.) if they smoke or not.

I wish they didn't smoke for their own benefit though. Honestly I don't appreciate when people smoke around me, because I don't smoke. But I don't think any less of someone who smokes.

Also:

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.

This guy rocks, I wonder if he did anything similar for smokers who wanted to quit but needed help? I'm really sure he probably brought in some therapists, though hypnotists would be even better :lol

 

[Phoenix]

Wonder what his treatment would be for people who are still virgins, lifetime memberships to the gold club?

 

[ChrisReid]

I'm absolutely sickened by the contempt people have towards smokers. Everyone has weaknesses and vices. Smokers are just more visible. How about trying to be a little more tolerant you self-righteous pricks?

Hey, I'd LOVE IT if people just smoked in their own homes and didn't bother anyone else about it (well, it'd be kinda sad for their kids or whatever to get asthma and suffer lung problems for the rest of their lives). I wish they'd do it all day long so they'd hurry up and die. But the fact is that smokers take their cigarettes everywhere. They come back from their smoke breaks stinking like hell for an hour. They take several smoke breaks per day. Their smoke-infested jackets alone are enough to stink up an office. They clog up the doorways to offices/malls/etc with a cloud of toxic gas. Go ahead and do all your stupid vices, as long as they don't bother me. Smokers personally screw with my system every single day.

You're officially fucking retarded if you think the boss' actions are a good thing.

Eh, rather be fucking retarded that come within a hundred feet of any smokers.

Some of the people think 2nd hand smoking being "assulted", as if I'm stabbing you with a knife. In that case, why not firing or forbid people who drive SUV or even a car? Carbon Monoxide is bad for health and environment?!

When I get a whiff of cigarette smoke, it is like I'm being stabbed. Because my dad smoked around me so much when I was young, I've become hyper sensitive to it. Whenever I walk past someone who just went on a smoke break of walk part their jacket or whatever, I get instant splitting headaches and chest pains. I also drive a car with one of those SULEV mega low emission output ratings, because I'm similarly affected by car exhaust (though to a much lower extent, since nobody locked me in the garage with a running car when I was little).

There's no reason to smoke. All you stupid fucking smokers started when you were stupid fucking high school burn outs with nothing better to do, and now you're stuck with a ridiculous avoidable money-burning addiction. My only consolation is that you will probably die an untimely and horrible rotting death.

 

[Meier]

So let's say you're a gamer. And your boss all the sudden decides that because games are linked to real-life violence, you're not allowed to play games during your own time at home anymore. You have a wife, who is unemployed, and three kids to support, so having to find a new job really wouldn't be a great option at the moment.

You wouldn't have a problem with this?

Of course he'd have a problem with this. These smokers probably have a problem with this.. but ya know what, the boss is within his grounds and that's that. It isn't about agreeing with his actions, it's about acknowledging that it's completely legal for him to do it. Get government and lawsuits out of business, let the bosses control their requirements.

 

[Jdw40223]

I'd make the smokers quit too... needy bitches.




dont forget back in the day, when smoking was 'cool and new'... you could actually smoke at work, -while working, -at your desk. Pay back! GFY!!