I support smoking bans in public - especially at bars and concerts, I even think it should be banned outdoors, but I do think people should be allowed to do what they want in their own free time indoors.


Four workers in the United States have lost their jobs after refusing to take a test to see if they were smokers" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4213441.stm

I was struggling to think of any justification before reading the article, and sure enough there wasn't one.

It will be very interesting if the company wins, I wonder if the tobbaco giants will fund the workers case?

As long as there is no law against general smoking the company is way out. The only company who have any justified interest in a persons tobacco habits on their spare time is insurance companies when they decide how much you have to pay for your insurance.

Didn't you hear? That guy have also said that he is going to fire all overweight people on the job.

Firing people for being overweight?

Some people have medical conditions but this is probably the point. Its all about saving a few $'s.

If a woman develops breast cancer and has to take time off work for chemotherapy and radiotherapy she might be hastled into quitting or will use any excuse to fire her as she is costing the company lots of money.

Maybe in the furture people will be fired for drinking coke as it will cost the company a fortune in dental insurance!

.. opponents say it is a violation of workers' rights to indulge whatever habits they choose to when they are off-duty, particularly as smoking is legal and does not impair people's ability to do their jobs.I hate smoking with a passion (living in a house with two smokers, I am forced to choke on the damn smoke on a daily basis), but even I agree with the above quote. As long as the smokers aren't bothering me directly (like anywhere in a public place), why on earth would I give a damn what they do in their spare time.

While I agree that I don't like such a thing, I'm pretty sure the company is well within its legal rights. Discrimination is only illegal when it is applied to "protected status" items such as religious affiliation, ethnicity, disability, etc. A company can refuse to hire somebody simply because they don't like the hat they wear.

If the people were hired with the no-smoking policy in place, then I think the company should win the case; if the policy was implemented after they were hired, then I would assume the company would at least have to fork over some compensation.

This is tricky. The company is a healthcare one, therefore, obviously, the circumstances differ from the ordinary.

That said, it's still not enough for the company to be a healthcare business and for smoking to be unhealthy, to introduce a ban effective outside work space and hours. There is no reason, for example, to fire smoking medical staff so long as they don't smoke around patients and there's no reason whatsoever to fire overweigth staff.

However, if the company's statute includes the promotion of healthy lifestyle, then the company may be entitled to enact such policies and, so long as those expressly and publicly denounce smoking and overweight, then the company may be entitled to require the staff to be non-smokers and to keep their weight in line as a means of providing an example to the people to whom the company's lifestyle advice is addressed. It can also affect the credibility of an anti-smoking institution if it employs smokers. However, it seems that when the staff are not acting as representatives and are not making their affiliation with the company public, the company has no right to interfere so much with their private lives. The problem is more complex with overweight people, as it is not possible to be overweight only outside work space and hours, but it is perfectly possible to be overweight for reasons not related with overeating or lack of exercise.

The question is, how much does the private life of the staff interfere with their loyalty to the company and how much does it affect the credibility of the company (e.g. to what extent can a smoker be expected actively to work in favour of smoking bans, against the nicotine industry and for the promotion of non-smoking and provide an example, or to what extent can an overweight person be expected dedicatedly to promote a healthy diet, let alone provide an example)?

There is no clear answer and the solution will probably have to be a compromise between two incompatible interests.

But opponents say it is a violation of workers' rights to indulge whatever habits they choose to when they are off-duty, particularly as smoking is legal and does not impair people's ability to do their jobs.That is correct and the problem must be viewed in the light of freedom of association (or perhaps non-association) of the company and not in terms of authority, as the employer has authority whatsoever over the employees' free time.

The BBC's Jannat Jalil in Washington says that if the firm survives any future legal challenges, it could set a precedent for other companies to follow suit.That is a fast conclusion and perhaps too fast. There is a difference between a business' healthy lifestyle policy and the valid interests of a healthcare company.

"Certainly it raises an interesting boundary issue," job placement specialist John Challenger told Reuters. "Rising healthcare costs and society's aversion to smoking versus privacy and freedom rights of an individual."That is an interesting problem. On one hand it appears right and proper that people who suffer health problems as a result of their lifestyle choices should pay for their mistakes rather than burden the thin healthcare budget. However, should even people who suffer health problems through no choice on their own not focus primarily on obtaining the funds to cover their medical expenses? After all, people encounter various different problems in life and they are expected to deal with them on their own. Publicly funding expensive healthcare could possibly be an unjust exception from the point of view of people affected by difficulties in which they receive no public help.

Example: Two children go rollerskating and they trip on a fallen tree branch. One breaks his arm and the other breaks his rollerskate. The former likely receives medical aid for free, which means the taxpayers pay for it. The latter receives no aid in buying a new pair of rollerskates. Where is the justice, he could ask.

These guys are a TPA involved in medical and non-medical life insurance business. That health company thing is bull****.

I dont know how insurance works in the US but out here these guys mainly interact with the service providers such as hospitals and the business or company where their clients work. The people who are actually covered by these policies rarely, if ever, get to meet the TPA's employees.
The insurance payment is made by the client company to the TPA to ensure adequate cover for its employees. The TPA may advise the client company as to how these premiums may be reduced, by banning smoking in the company for instance.
I think this whole exercise is a promotional affair, designed to attract the attention of companies looking out to reduce their benefits payouts. If these guys are sued and get away with it, life for the salaried employee is gonna get a lot tougher in the US.

I'm thinking it's probably legal, because it is a private company, and as such, they really don't need a very good reason to fire somebody. I forget which thread I had said this before, but I'll reference it again. When you sign a contract to work with someone, it usually has some fine print at the bottom that reads something to the effect of: "This contract may be terminated by either party (meaning the employee or the employer) with or without cause."

So, while I disagree with what has been done, I do not think there is much legal recourse for those fired.

This is a very tricky topic in the US these days as many states do not consider smoking to be a "protected" status as mentioned above. Even in California, which is one of the more liberal states and looks out for workers, there is no such protection. There was a front page LA Times article about this in today's paper, but I didn't get a chance to read it before I went to work.

The legitimate employer interest of controlling its contribution to health care costs and having employees less likely to have illness complications (smoking has a high correlation to general illness according to many actuaries, so your smoking employee is going to generally have more problems than your non-smoking one) is going to seriously butt heads with the people's rights to engage in whatever legal habits they want.

True believers in a market approach are going to say that companies are going to form (or existing ones will engage in new habits) that are designed to make a home for smokers because qualified people are hard to find and the health costs will be built into the compensation structure. I'm not sure I believe that it will go that way, but we'll see how this all shakes out.

The real question is whether these companies that are targeting smokers are going to apply that ban across the boards (including management). If they do, then I imagine the people challenging the issue are going to have a more difficult time of it. If there are exceptions and exemptions, then the challenge is going to be on the wrongful termination front (i.e., this is an excuse for firing someone for an improper reason, as it is not being equally applied).

Let's see what develops.

I've often thought about taking up smoking. I could use more breaks at the office.

In virtually all if not all European countries sacking workers for smoking outside work or for being overwight would be considered 'unfair' dismissal (or whatever term countries outside the UK use).

Thus it would give rise to a compensation claim against the company.

Workers' rights are far better protected in terms of employment law in Europe compared to the US of course, and contracts of employment cannot be terminated without fair cause, and this would not constitute fair reason for dismissal.

It's all about cutting costs. The company probably gets a price break from insurance providers if they claim to have a no-smoking policy. I find it hard to believe that Howard Weyers gives a rat's arse about the employees.

I have a friend who worked for a company that had a similar policy. I don't remember the details, but I believe they all had to sign some contract stating that they didn't smoke or they had to pay more for their insurance or something. I don't know if they could be fired or not, but it was kind of funny because my friend was indeed a smoker and would always be looking over his shoulder when we were out at bars or restaurants to make sure no one else from the company was around.

I actually wouldn't be surprised if the company I work for resorts to something like this in the coming years. Every year they make some new changes to our benefits which always seems to deduct more from our paychecks.

I am torn on this issue though. Smoking is undoubtedly detrimental to one's health, so, in trying to think from an employers standpoint, would I want to have to pay for my employees' indulgence in unhealthy practices? This could then be applied to obesity and drinking...hell, could even be applied to any form of risky recreational activity like skydiving.

I personally think that if a company truly cares about the health of its employees, it should provide better education on the harms of smoking and offer incentives for people to quit. Threating to fire someone doesn't seem like the most compassionate thing to do, hence my conclusion that it all comes down to the almighty dollar.