Fired for smoking

[A Karenina]

This story is being hotly debated among coworkers at my company. What do you think? Should this be legal?

Article link.

What about alcohol, non-exercise, bad diets, etc?

[StelZ]

Omg thats a bit exteme isnt it?!!
In the UK if they did that they'd have the European Court of Human Rights onto them.

[Der Wulf]

Originally Posted by A Karenina

This story is being hotly debated among coworkers at my company. What do you think? Should this be legal?

Article link.

What about alcohol, non-exercise, bad diets, etc?

IMO, this is well over the slippery slope. Smoking is legal. Smokers were targeted because the owner believes they detrementally effect his bottom line, maybe tomorrow he will be of the opinion that celebates are more productive workers. To what extent should he be allowed to go in determining your in home behavior.
I saw an interview with this joyless little weasel, he'd make a very good scrooge? Sorry, give me liberty, or give him pain

[valerie]

This is a real toughie, and one of those "slippery slope" deals.

I feel for the woman in the article who wasn't on the comapny's ins.
but I can understand an employer's need to try and keep down costs
and co-worker's desire not to have to "pay" for her smoking. Smoking
causes so many health problems.

It's sort of like the people with kids, a few years back a co-worker had
to leave because her little boy was sick, in the middle of THE worst
deadline crunch you ever saw, involving massive amounts of time and
late nights and heartache for a bunch of other people. Because of her
decision to have a baby. There was an awful lot of understandable (to
me) grumbling over it and the issue never was resolved. And this at a
company that had articles written about it for innovation in on-site
day care, etc.

And then the union health insurance plan where I worked had huge
(Couple million dollar's worth) losses for the hospitalization of a
co-worker, resulting in raising everyone's contributions and co-pays,
etc. That co-worker had full-blown AIDS.

So, I dunno. I do think that a company should have "grandfathered
in" the employees already there who did smoke and couldn't quit.
Maybe make very clear to employees just coming in that there was
a "no smoking" policy. Still, what are these people gonna do? Set up
Web cams in everyone's home to make sure there's no smoking going
on? Test for blood nicotine levels? Too big brother for me.

[rachelg]

As much as I hate cigarettes, I have to say it was wrong in my opinion to fire someone because they couldn't quit. I was curious how they knew they were smoking still yet anyway; did they send out spies? It does make insurance higher and it does seem like some of the smokers I know are the ones out sick more, but I don't think it's true in every case. A small company I worked for in the 80's had an employee involved in a serious car crash. He did survive, but was in the hospital for months and was left an invalid. The insurance co. we had went way up in cost and during the rest of the time I worked there, no insurance company was as reasonably priced as the original we'd had. So, you can't predict what things will go wrong. It would be like no one could do anything, smoke, drink, eat fast food, drive, exercise excessively.....

[Florrie]

Originally Posted by StelZ

Omg thats a bit exteme isnt it?!!
In the UK if they did that they'd have the European Court of Human Rights onto them.

??? Believe me some Health Authorities have warned staff if they are caught smoking at work they will walk the walk towards verbal> written warning > disciplined > fired.

[StelZ]

Originally Posted by Florrie

??? Believe me some Health Authorities have warned staff if they are caught smoking at work they will walk the walk towards verbal> written warning > disciplined > fired.

If they were employed with the strict understanding the company had a no-somking policy at work, and then if they got caught smoking at work I could understand the disciplinary action.
But what right does the employer have to discipline an employee for doing something outside of work?
Are employees not protected by a contract of employment?

[Florrie]

Originally Posted by StelZ

If they were employed with the strict understanding the company had a no-somking policy at work, and then if they got caught smoking at work I could understand the disciplinary action.
But what right does the employer have to discipline an employee for doing something outside of work?
Are employees not protected by a contract of employment?

Some staff were employed possibly for years before the assembled evidence of smoking related disease - and of cource the blame for all ailments.
Health Authorities in particular began by changing their policies and offering staff, 'smoking cessation programmes' along with fore-warning that the workplace would become a 'no smoking zone'.
Staff employed in NO SMOKING hospitals would be viewed as a representitive of same, and therefore cautioned to change habits or else - contract or not.
Same for community staff, eg district nurses, midwives, health visitors etc re- smoking in their cars!!!!! And some police depts, following suit.
Some workers including ambulance drivers, have random drug testing (for blood alcohol levels). Smoking - not gone as far as lung function measure test YET.
But think of those who might like a few pints Sunday night - go work Monday - get unlucky.........sacked!!!.

[capt_buzzard]

What about the Old folks nursing homes ect.

[BabyRider]

Originally Posted by valerie

Smoking
causes so many health problems.

Yep, it does. So does lack of exercise, over eating, alcohol, sex, using cell phones, sitting in front of a computer too long, inactivity, video games, improper diet, lack of sleep...

Am I getting through?

You're absolutely right, Val...big brother is watching! A future step IS cameras in homes if laws like these are put in place.