What do you all think about this piece..........
-----------------------------------------
Once workers punch out, companies need to butt out
Cara Stiffler, a smoker, used to work at Weyco Inc., a medical-benefits administration company in Okemos, Mich. She and three other employees left Weyco last month because of the company's anti-smoking policy: Workers aren't allowed to light up on company property - or anywhere else.
"I want to quit (smoking) but I want it to be on my terms, not someone forcing me to have to make that choice," Stiffler told CNN.
The company says it's acting for the good of its workers and to lower health care costs. But refusing to hire smokers, or firing them for lighting up in the privacy of their homes, crosses a line between promoting health and meddling in people's lives. If companies can dictate whether employees can smoke, why not dictate what they can eat, or bar them from sky diving? Obesity affects health costs. Dangerous activities do, too.
Almost 80% of U.S. workplaces ban or restrict smoking. The restrictions have the force of law in seven states. About 350 municipalities ban smoking at workplaces, restaurants or bars.
Banning smoking in public places or workplaces is one thing. Banning workers from smoking off the job is another - except in cases where smoking has a direct and detrimental impact on job performance.
At least 6,000 employers refuse to hire smokers, the National Workrights Institute, an affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, found. That prohibitionist trend led 29 states to pass laws protecting smokers from workplace discrimination. Unfortunately for smokers at Weyco, Michigan isn't one of them. While Weyco is in the news lately, other employers have taken similar steps to extinguish smoking:
• A Fall River, Mass., policeman was fired in 2003 after someone anonymously reported that he was smoking while off-duty at a party. State law allows police and firefighters to be terminated immediately for tobacco use. Several Florida sheriff's departments won't hire tobacco users, while officials in Pinellas County demand that applicants undergo polygraph questioning and tests for nicotine. Courts have upheld these policies.
• Union Pacific announced a no-smoking policy last year for all employees, on and off premises. Alaska Airlines has long required job applicants to pass a nicotine test.
Companies say their actions are justified because smokers incur increased health care costs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates the nation's cost for smoking is $3,383 a year for every smoker, $1,760 in lost productivity and $1,623 in excess medical bills.
That's good reason to discourage smoking, but not to justify discrimination. Many lifestyle choices affect health and insurance costs. Health costs related to obesity are $117 billion a year. How about sunbathers who risk skin cancer? What about sexual orientation and habits? What area of life is off-limits to company snooping?
Paying for health insurance shouldn't let employers deny workers the chance to earn a living because they engage in legal activities on their own time. The carrot, such as nutritional and smoking-cessation programs, is preferable to the stick.
"Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits," Mark Twain noted. Once workers punch out for the day, their bad, but lawful, decisions ought to be their own business. Intrusive companies should butt out.
-------------------------------------------
So, I bet some on the left like letting governments and companies adopt such policies because they feel it would improve public health, and some on the right like it because companies should be allowed to do what they want, and after all, smoking is immoral.
I, personally, as a civil libertarian liberal (yes, they exist), find the idea of testing people for nicotine and making their jobs dependent upon it unconstitutional, immoral, and pretty darn stupid (why screen out qualified people because they smoke?)
I am a nonsmoker, and appreciate the nonsmoking laws in restaurants and workplaces that protect my right to clean air. But, to tell someone they aren't allowed to smoke anywhere during nonwork hours is ridiculous.
-----------------------------------------
Once workers punch out, companies need to butt out
Cara Stiffler, a smoker, used to work at Weyco Inc., a medical-benefits administration company in Okemos, Mich. She and three other employees left Weyco last month because of the company's anti-smoking policy: Workers aren't allowed to light up on company property - or anywhere else.
"I want to quit (smoking) but I want it to be on my terms, not someone forcing me to have to make that choice," Stiffler told CNN.
The company says it's acting for the good of its workers and to lower health care costs. But refusing to hire smokers, or firing them for lighting up in the privacy of their homes, crosses a line between promoting health and meddling in people's lives. If companies can dictate whether employees can smoke, why not dictate what they can eat, or bar them from sky diving? Obesity affects health costs. Dangerous activities do, too.
Almost 80% of U.S. workplaces ban or restrict smoking. The restrictions have the force of law in seven states. About 350 municipalities ban smoking at workplaces, restaurants or bars.
Banning smoking in public places or workplaces is one thing. Banning workers from smoking off the job is another - except in cases where smoking has a direct and detrimental impact on job performance.
At least 6,000 employers refuse to hire smokers, the National Workrights Institute, an affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, found. That prohibitionist trend led 29 states to pass laws protecting smokers from workplace discrimination. Unfortunately for smokers at Weyco, Michigan isn't one of them. While Weyco is in the news lately, other employers have taken similar steps to extinguish smoking:
• A Fall River, Mass., policeman was fired in 2003 after someone anonymously reported that he was smoking while off-duty at a party. State law allows police and firefighters to be terminated immediately for tobacco use. Several Florida sheriff's departments won't hire tobacco users, while officials in Pinellas County demand that applicants undergo polygraph questioning and tests for nicotine. Courts have upheld these policies.
• Union Pacific announced a no-smoking policy last year for all employees, on and off premises. Alaska Airlines has long required job applicants to pass a nicotine test.
Companies say their actions are justified because smokers incur increased health care costs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates the nation's cost for smoking is $3,383 a year for every smoker, $1,760 in lost productivity and $1,623 in excess medical bills.
That's good reason to discourage smoking, but not to justify discrimination. Many lifestyle choices affect health and insurance costs. Health costs related to obesity are $117 billion a year. How about sunbathers who risk skin cancer? What about sexual orientation and habits? What area of life is off-limits to company snooping?
Paying for health insurance shouldn't let employers deny workers the chance to earn a living because they engage in legal activities on their own time. The carrot, such as nutritional and smoking-cessation programs, is preferable to the stick.
"Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits," Mark Twain noted. Once workers punch out for the day, their bad, but lawful, decisions ought to be their own business. Intrusive companies should butt out.
-------------------------------------------
So, I bet some on the left like letting governments and companies adopt such policies because they feel it would improve public health, and some on the right like it because companies should be allowed to do what they want, and after all, smoking is immoral.
I, personally, as a civil libertarian liberal (yes, they exist), find the idea of testing people for nicotine and making their jobs dependent upon it unconstitutional, immoral, and pretty darn stupid (why screen out qualified people because they smoke?)
I am a nonsmoker, and appreciate the nonsmoking laws in restaurants and workplaces that protect my right to clean air. But, to tell someone they aren't allowed to smoke anywhere during nonwork hours is ridiculous.