[Gas Man]

I've heard on the radio for the last couple days about this company in Lansing, MI that won't allow it's workers to be smokers. A company called Waco (yes, like the Waco kid shooting).

Anyway, the company got sick of paying higher insurance premiums due to a few employees that smoked. So they decided one day to say that all of it's employees would be smoke free (completely) or you would be laid off/fired.

Now, understand, they mean YOU CAN'T SMOKE AT ALL, not even on your personal time. The company purchased some Carbon Nioxide detectors and will test it's employees' clothing and such at random to ensure that you (the employee) are NOT smoking!

In the end 4 people wouldn't quit and therefor were fired!

What do you guys think of this???

Furthermore, there are many people that are bietching up a storm about this. But they can't do much. Michigan is a "at will" employment state. And if you or your actions are costing the company money they may "can" you!! The company need not give you fore warning or anything. The old saying that if you don't like it then there's the door!

Again, What do you guys think of this???

 

[Pigface1]

I think the company needs to find other ways to be more profitable.

However, I think a company should have the right to set any standards they want. Either way, they're not going to last long. . the money they save doing that will be spent in lawyer fees 100x over once the ACLU gets wind of it.

I am in a Hire and Fire state, but rarely is it that simple.

 

[Need4Speed]

if the employees banded together and got themselves a good legal team, they could tie this up in paperwork and in the courts for a good long time !

 

[bumblebee]

The employer has the right to set conditions for employment. I too, will not hire smokers if that person will be working inside. I used to have an outside smoking area, but the smokers left it in such a mess everyday, I got tired of cleaning up after them. I now enforce a smoke free workplace. I don't see a "rights" issue here. I see the issue as "choices". You make yours and I make mine.

 

[Gas Man]

See that's just another reason, as Bee says. But I can totally see the employers view point.
Does somebody else want to search for the story?

 

[No Worries]

I'm an ex-smoker so I'm biased. But if employers can enforce no illegal drugs in their employees, why can't they enforce no tobacco?

 

[Gas Man]

Some people on the radio said but smoking isn't illiegal. My arguement against that thinking is that most employers don't let you drink before coming to work...

 

[Becca_007]

I'm quite torn. Making the place of employent smoke-free is quite different from making that employee smoke-free. While I'd like to work in a smokefree environment I don't like that more lifestyle rules are being forced on workers. What comes next? You can't drink a beer while watching the game too? And, what happens if you go to a bar with some friends? That damn cigarette smokes lingers on your clothing and especially your jacket for quite a while. Would I then be fired because someone I was around was smoking? I see this as a very tough call. Perhaps requiring employees to sign a statement saying they are smokefree for medical benefits would accomplish the same thing, as then it would be the employees responsibility if they were caught not following their previous statement. If they won't sign, then they would personally pay the difference in the insurance premium.

 

[chev]

I personally think it's complete crap. Smoke free work environment is great, inside and outside. I completely agree but it's none of my business what people do outside of work...as is it NO ONE elses. If it's legal, then why should an employer have any rights to dictate one's habits???? As long as it doesn't affect your ability to do your job (I.E., coming to work drunk would affect you for sure), then NO company should have any right to inforce this on anyone. Higher insurance premiums for health insurance......that's an interesting one. So, they're calling these people "high risk". I'll give all of you HIGH RISK. Would if your employer says you can't ride a sport bike because you're "high risk"?????????? NOW HOW DO YOU ALL FEEL ABOUT IT???? That's my :2cents:

Chev...over and out

 

[Captain Morgan]

Personally, I like Becca's idea. The employees should be allowed to pay the extra premiums if they want to smoke, but the employer should still be allowed to designate the work environment (and outside areas) as smoke free. The federal penn here has said that employees can no longer have cigarettes ON THE PREMISES. The employees are free to do what they want on their own time, but they can't even have cigarettes in their car out in the parking lot.

 

[Pigface1]

Some people on the radio said but smoking isn't illiegal. My arguement against that thinking is that most employers don't let you drink before coming to work...

Tobacco doesn't impair you.

Anyway, we could slice and dice the theory behind it all day long, but the bottom line is the employer is going to waste more money enforcing it than they would save in insurance.

I'm the boss and I smoke, but I smoke outside in the smoking area, and put my butts out in the ashtrays. Not everyone does, but it's not a complete mess out there. My employees bust their asses for me everyday, and good employees are hard to find. So, I'm not about to dismiss or overlook a new hire just b/c they smoke. I'm in business to make money, not be a sheep herder towards a better way of life.

Personally, I think it should be mandatory to smoke and have a bar in every office, like in the old days.

"Thanks for taking the time to see me."

"No problem. . drink?"

"You betcha." :lol:

On a serious note, the guy or lady doing this, as I already said, probably isn't the sharpest marble in the bag. The premiums smokers have to pay can be passed on to them; the company doesn't have to pay those. Insurance salesmen fight tooth and nail for a company's business.

So, I stick by my original statement. There are better ways to save money, and whoever is running that company won't be running it for long b/c they lack the common sense to be profitable, IMO.

 

[ShanMan14]

I've got a couple of viewpoints about this.

If I was running an office, or was the business owner, I would feel differently. I would also feel differently if I allowed it one day and disallowed it the next. If it meant losing good people, I'd probably let it stand but future hires would have to be smoke free.

You have to keep your people happy, but not at the cost of alienating the good people who don't smoke.

Now, working for someone else... that's a different story. I sit near a door where the smokers go in and out all day. I can't stand the stench, but at least they're smoking outside. What I really have an issue with is the time they spend each day outside smoking.

There are people here that spend 5+ minutes outside every hour. It becomes a social event as much as a nicotine fix. 5 minutes times 8 hours times 5 five days is 200 minutes week, or well over THREE HOURS of lost productivity for the worst offenders. Even smokers who spend half that much time, cost the company an hour and a half of lost productivity.

Now, how would management feel if all of the non-smokers left an hour or two early (paid) on Friday afternoon? The smokers would have to stay. There would be outrage. What if I decided to leave work twice a week for one hour to go to the gym and workout?

That's my biggest problem, the time and how it's looked at differently. It's almost as if the non-smokers are penalized.

 

[Pigface1]

I'll give all of you HIGH RISK. Would if your employer says you can't ride a sport bike because you're "high risk"?????????? NOW HOW DO YOU ALL FEEL ABOUT IT???? That's my :2cents:

Chev...over and out

No more fast food either. It puts you at risk of heart disease. Yet, you don't see a fast food tax like you do on tobacco.

I'm not complaining about it, things are what they are. Hell, I voted for a $.50 per pack increase per pack in my state last election. :lol:

 

[Pigface1]

There are people here that spend 5+ minutes outside every hour. It becomes a social event as much as a nicotine fix. 5 minutes times 8 hours times 5 five days is 200 minutes week, or well over THREE HOURS of lost productivity for the worst offenders. Even smokers who spend half that much time, cost the company an hour and a half of lost productivity.

Now, how would management feel if all of the non-smokers left an hour or two early (paid) on Friday afternoon? The smokers would have to stay. There would be outrage. What if I decided to leave work twice a week for one hour to go to the gym and workout?

That's my biggest problem, the time and how it's looked at differently. It's almost as if the non-smokers are penalized.

Total Posts: 26,598
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/member.php?u=7832

:skep: :jester:

 

[Captain Morgan]

I've got a couple of viewpoints about this.

If I was running an office, or was the business owner, I would feel differently. I would also feel differently if I allowed it one day and disallowed it the next. If it meant losing good people, I'd probably let it stand but future hires would have to be smoke free.

You have to keep your people happy, but not at the cost of alienating the good people who don't smoke.

Now, working for someone else... that's a different story. I sit near a door where the smokers go in and out all day. I can't stand the stench, but at least they're smoking outside. What I really have an issue with is the time they spend each day outside smoking.

There are people here that spend 5+ minutes outside every hour. It becomes a social event as much as a nicotine fix. 5 minutes times 8 hours times 5 five days is 200 minutes week, or well over THREE HOURS of lost productivity for the worst offenders. Even smokers who spend half that much time, cost the company an hour and a half of lost productivity.

Now, how would management feel if all of the non-smokers left an hour or two early (paid) on Friday afternoon? The smokers would have to stay. There would be outrage. What if I decided to leave work twice a week for one hour to go to the gym and workout?

That's my biggest problem, the time and how it's looked at differently. It's almost as if the non-smokers are penalized.

VERY good points, Shan.

And pig, I agree with your points as well. Like I said, Becca's idea (which you restated) was a good one. Make the employees pick up the tab for the premiums if they are the ones deemed as high risk. The insurance companies will just have to do surveys on eating habits (and all other habits) to deem what is high risk and then charge for that like they charge for everything else. :lol:

 

[Captain Morgan]

Total Posts: 26,598
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/member.php?u=7832

:skep: :jester:

Hell, he's been there almost FIVE years.

 

[Pigface1]

Hell, he's been there almost FIVE years.

Yeah, he could be a little more efficient with his post whoring. :lol:

I completely understand what Shan is saying though. It just sucks b/c he picked up on our scheme. :rofl:

 

[ShanMan14]

Yeah, he could be a little more efficient with his post whoring. :lol:

I completely understand what Shan is saying though. It just sucks b/c he picked up on our scheme. :rofl:

What are we talking about?

 

[2FURYUS]

Where does it end?!

I have read many valid points here, but to tell someone they can't smoke at work is one thing, but not at all is crazy.

Smoking should be done outside, in a designated area and only during breaks at work.

Almost all people are high risk for one thing or another, be it food, alcohol, weight, maybe even intelligence for some...
so :wtf:

How 'bout a little reality check? :lol: :lol:

 

[Pigface1]

What are we talking about?

You figured out that smokers have a system of getting more breaks versus you smoke-free types. :lol: