Next: You may be fired because your BMI is not in proper range

Company Fires All Employees Who Smoke
Michigan Firm Won't Allow Smoking, Even On Employee's Own Time

UPDATED: 8:20 AM EST January 25, 2005

LANSING, Mich. -- Four employees of a health care company have been fired for refusing to take a test to determine whether they smoke cigarettes.

Weyco Inc., a health benefits administrator based in Okemos, Mich., adopted a policy Jan. 1 that allows employees to be fired if they smoke, even if the smoking happens after business hours or at home.

Company founder Howard Weyers has said the anti-smoking rule was designed to shield the firm from high health care costs. "I don't want to pay for the results of smoking," he said.

The rule led one employee to quit before the policy was adopted. Four others were fired when they balked at the smoking test.

Chief Financial Officer Gary Climes estimated that 18 to 20 of the company's 200 employers were smokers when the policy was announced in 2003. Of those, as many as 14 quit smoking before the policy went into effect. The company offered them help to kick the habit.

"That is absolutely a victory," Climes said.

Interesting to note - the employees only refused to take the test, that does not mean that they actually smoke. Also, an interesting question: what about people who use the patch or gum? That would show up as smoking in the test but they don't actually smoke.

Next question - If you can be fired for this health choice what stops them from testing for alcohol (the wine you had at dinner or over the weekend) and what stops them from firing people who have a BMI that is gauged as overweight?

All I can say is: BECOME THE PERFECT DRONE. The idea of standing in front of the TV doing jumping jacks like a good little citizen comes to mind.

Some UK companies already do this.

I'm of two minds here.

I hate the fact that they are trying to enforce what a person does on their own dime, in their own house...

But I can also symapthise with not wanting to foot the potential medical bills for such a habbit.

I guess my point is that it's a slippery slope. If they can fire someone for even having nicotine in their blood stream (this does not necessarily consititue smoking) then they can fire them for a number of other reasons that pertain to what they do on their own time as well. Such as eating and drinking or even owning a motorcycle, scuba diving, sky diving or any other activities that involve risk.

What's to stop them from requiring a genetic test to see if you will get Hunningtons, or Lung Cancer or Ovarian Cancer and then denying you employment and health insurance?

How much control should a corporation have over it's workers? How much control should a government have over it's people and what they choose to do with their own bodies?

How far is too far?

Excellent point Rose. I am a smoker and I can understand the reasons for refusing employment on such terms, but yes; how far can you go with this? What if another family member smokes? What level of nicotine is unacceptable? After I go home from work, am I to close myself in a hermetically sealed container until the next day I'm ready?
I'm being silly of course, but indeed how much control should an employer have over your private affairs?

*visions of Gattica*

This is already too far.

-Ghoti

NONE!! You are hired to perform a task. If you show up on time, put in your hours, and perform your task with reasonable efficiency then that is your ONLY obligation to your employer. This is bullshit. I hope they sue.

One point:

1) They were fired not for smoking, but for refusing to take the test to determine if they smoke. AKA, a drug test. Refusal to take a drug test administered by your employer is grounds for firing. I've taken drug tests that if I refused to take, I would have been fired. Standard common practice. They have no grounds for suing unless they were caught smoking and fired for that.

Okay, let me play devils advocate here. Not only is smoking all to well known to cause health problems - no smoker can/should rationally make a claim they have no conscious knowledge of the potential risks they take for their habit. It's tantamount to going home (or wherever) everyday and playing russian-roulette for the evening - but smoking probably has better odds. Should Death and Dismemberment coverage pay for the demise of such a person? Certainly I think most insurance companies won't.
Hmmm, guess the better solution for these companies would be simply to refuse insurance coverage for people that smoke - surely they can get coverage another way?
Then there is the question of honesty. Would a smoker admit to their habit if they knew they could get better coverage through their employer than through a independant insurer? Oh how i would like to beleive people would be honest about that, reality however paints a much different picture. Lying is a survial tool.
This is so interesting since it's as much about vices and how others are held accountable for them than it is about your right to privacy.

However, nicotine is not a drug. (Not until the FDA regulates it. Or whomever it is.)

So just how accurate is drug screening?

Here is a list of items that can cause a false positive, I got these off the web site of a Drug Screening Company. BTW - Drug Screening costs between $25 and $65 per employee. Multiply that by the number of employed people in the US (not even counting the UK here) and Damn... those guys are making some bucks!

AMPHETAMINES

Over-the-counter cold and allergy remedies that contain ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, propylephedrine, phenylephrine or desoxyephedrine: Nyquil, Contact, Sudafed, Allerest 12 Hour, A.R.M., Triaminic 12, Ornade, Tavist-D, Dimetapp, Sinex, Neosynephrine, Actifed, Bayer Select Maximum Strength Sinus Pain Relief Caplets, Contact Non-Drowsy Formula Sinus Caplets, Dristan Cold Caplets, Maximum Strength Sine-Aid Tablets, Maximum Strength Sudafed Sinus Caplets, Maximum Strength Tylenol Sinus Gelcaps, No Drowsiness Sinarest Tabs, Sinus Excedrin Extra Strength Caplets, Cheracol Sinus, Drixoral Cold and Flu, Efidac/24, Phenegan-D, Robitussin Cold and Flu, Vicks Nyquil.

Over-the-counter diet aids containing phenylpropanolamine: Dexatrim, Accutrim

Over-the-counter nasal sprays: Vicks inhaler, Afrin

Asthma medication: Marax, Bronkaid tablets, Primatine Tablets

Prescription medication: Amfepramone, Cathne, Etafediabe, Morazone, phendimetrazine, phenmetrazine, benzphetamine, fenfluramine, dexfenfluramine, dexdenfluramine, Redux, mephentermine, Mesocarb, methoxphenamine, phentermine, amineptine, Pholedrine, hydroymethamphetamine, Dexedrine, amifepramone, clobenzorex, fenproyorex, mefenorex, fenelylline, Didrex, dextroamphetamine, methphenidate, Ritalin, pemoline, Cylert, selegiline, Deprenyl, Eldepryl, Famprofazone

MARIJUANA

Over-the-counter NSAIDS: Ibuprofen; Advil, Nuprin, Mediprim, Motrin, Bayer Select Pain Relief Formula, Excedrin IB Caplets, Genpril, Haltran, Ibuprin, Midol 200, Pamprin, Trendar Cramp Relif Formula, Cramp End Tablets, Medipren, Rufin, Naproxen, Aleve, Ketoprofen, Orudis KT.

Prescription NSAIDS: Anaprox, Tolectin, ifenoprofen, flurbiprofen, oxaprozin, Ansaid, Clinoril, Dolobid, Feldene, Indocin, Lodine, Meclomen, Motrin, Nalfon, Naprosyn, Orudis, Relafen, Voltaren

Over-the-counter allergy preparations, sleep aids and antinausea medications that contain promethazine: Phenergan, Promethegan.

Dronabinol, Edecrin

COCAINE

Amoxicillin, tonic water, Ampicillin and most Antibiotics.

OPIOIDS

Emprin, Tylenole with codeine, Capital with codeine, Margesic, rifampicin, Vicodin, Percodan, Percocet, Wygesic.

BARBITURATES

Fiorinol, Donnatol, some sleeping pills, antiasthmatic preparations that contain phenobarbitol, Dilantin.

BENZODIAZEPINES

Most prescription sleeping pills and anti-anxiety medication.

LYSERIC ACID DIETHLAND

Migraine medication: egotamine, Ergostat, Cafergot, Wigraine, Imitrex Hydergine, bromocription, methysergiside, lisuride, lysergol, Artane, triprolidine, amitriptyline (Elavil), dicyclomine (Bentyle), antinausea medications that contain promethazine: Phenergan, Promethegan.

So... this does not even cover nicotine or alcohol.

Does this mean that one should seal ones self off from even the work place before agreeing to take a drug test?

As far as I can see, no one but the drug testing companies benefit from this. You can say that the employer does but the data is controversial at best and when you weigh the cost of the drug user against the cost of drug testing.... it appears to be a toss up.

Where do you draw the line? Should you be denied employment because you have unprotected sex, skydive, rockclimb, ride a motorcycle, live in a dangerous neighborhood, have to cross a busy street on your way to work, and on and on and on? This isn't rational. It's moralism.

One last point, if one were to follow the logic that one is responsible for their actions and if their actions cost the health care companies too much in caring for them (a shared expense) then that should put a stop to all of the following:

A) Breeding between any two people who have genetic disorders where the result of that coupling will be a child with a 50% chance of inheriting a costly, serious genetic disorder.

The logic applies because some genetic disorders can be pre-detected and predicted as accurately as drug screening is.

So.. should a couple who does this be fired from their jobs? Should they be denied health care for themselves and their child?

Should they be forced by economic sanction to be sterilized?

How far is too far? It seems as though the average person is subject to more and more small privacy invasions by virtue of economic sanctions. It's like bleeding to death by 1000 small cuts.

Ah and that's where the real battle is isn't it? We can't afford to sit on the sidelines and watch someone slowly take our liberties away from us in the name of *flavor of the day*. Moments like these make me curious about what it would be like to run an insurance company. In light of that, I wonder how much are they suffering to cover smoking related maladies and how much of that cost gets commuted to businesses that carry them. It must be significant, otherwise instances like what Rose originally posted wouldn't be happening. Or is this something alltogether different? Some mandate from the dept. of Treasury perhaps? hah.

They may have been fired for refusing to take a drug test, BUT it states right there its a new policy that employees could be fired for smoking... not fired for failing to take the test. If these people were smokers and took the test, I would assume from the above sentance that those folks would be fired regardless. I find it despicable that companies feel they have the right to invade people's privacy like this.

Is it legal to change the terms of employment and require current employees to be tested for a new substance (as opposed to the other substances I am assuming they are already tested for)? If my contract states I am to be randomly tested for marijuana, can the company I work for change that contract to test me for nicotine in addition without any recourse on my part?

Personally, I refuse to have my body tested in any way by my government or my employer. I realize not everyone has the freedom to demand this though.

I would pass the nicotine test. I have not smoked tobacco since May 24th, 1999. The pot test though....

-Ghoti

My guess is more like lobbying from drug, tobacco and alcohol screening companies - most of which are labratories owned by pharmacutical companies.

Honestly it sounds like the overall best policy would be to simply deny health care coverage to those employees who will not take the test (or test positive) and instead as an alternative to them (or to honestly any other employee that wishes it) simply pay them the amount that their health care would cost, as a non smoking plan-member which they can use to partially fund their own health care.

Smokers already pay so much extra tax that the healthcare system would collapse without them. They also already pay higher insurance premiums so any arguments about their disproportionate burden on healthcare and insurance are specious at best.

Pretty interesting topic.

Well, I'm a genetic alchaholic myself. I was just born that way, and I knew it way before I took my first drink. Alchahol's very dangerous around me, and for the past few months, I've been as pure as I can possibly be. All organic foods, drinking only water and tea, etc... Even back in my days of infidelity, though, I had a lot of caffine. But it never affected me. Ever. In fact, I can't ever remember a time when I had a caffine high.

I'm sure that there are people who can have a few drinks and feel just fine. I, personally, can't imagine that. I have one sip and the rest of the night has the topic of alchahol for me. But the point is, it's different for different folks. Employers need to know what hurts what person before they go any FURTHER with this.

um no thats actually the point, this employer is saying he can't afford to pay the higher premiums for smokers, hence the problem

Nope, he said "I don't want to pay for the results of smoking." He said nothing regarding an inability to pay, or an inability to have smokers pay a higher co-pay. This is pure and simple moralizing and denying people employment based on bias.

I pretty much agree with Chip on this (though I hate "where do you draw the line" and "slippery slope" arguements). If I get my work done It shouldn't matter what I do in the privacy of my crackhouse.

No comment, other than that article was the most poorly written piece of tripe I've ever come across.

Yes - it leaves some holes and questions and room for editing, but I did find it on Reuters so my guess is that it was actually written by a "real reporter". That as opposed to an engineer posing as a reporter.

You know, I bet it was the wires who once again stole the work of a brilliant yet overworked reporter at a small, hometown paper, condensed it to a third its original size and passed it off as their own work. Without giving the original reporter credit. Again.