I’m not certain that the same can be said about those activities. I am pretty certain, however, that the link between smoking and illness and more sick days has been made.
Insurance companies do this sort of thing.
I agree.
It’s a job, not a club.
I think an employer could make a case that it does affect job performance. Smokers get sick more often. That has been the conclusion of plenty of studies. Even if an employee does not take smoke breaks at work, they are still doing something outside of work that can be a drag on productivity and lead to higher health care costs. And how many smokers do you know who can really make it through a work day without stealing away for a smoke break? For some employees, though, I think it would be difficult to decide whether they smoke enough to be labled a smoker. Some people just smoke occasionally. However, it seems to me that most people who smoke do so daily and are probably harming their own health (and the bottom line of their employer).
That certainly seems logical to me. I don’t know what the actual practices of insurance companies are, though. In the case of an employer that provides health insurance, even if a smoking employee agrees to pay more money or receive a lower level of coverage, the employee will still be a drag on productivity.
I think quite a lot of things can be written into employment contracts.
The very scary part of all this is how much of an influence can/should one’s job have on their behavior?
Sure, you can argue if they want the job they’ll obey the rules, even if the rules are contrary to the person’s thinking/beliefs.
But why stop there? My coworkers used to argue politics all the time…which left some pissed off for days at a time and directly affected productivity…lost time, lower quality…so what, the company should only hire like-minded people?
Certainly there are ways around the sick leave thing, loss of bonus for excessive sick days taken…but smokers’ sick days cannot ALL be attributed to their smoking, can they?
Some days they might be hungover! 
Just another good reason for outsourcing. Sue me and my company? Fine. Pay your lawyer from your unemployment benefits and I’ll send you both a postcard from Dongguan or Bangalore. Sheesh! As someone else posted, it’s a job not a club. And it should be added, it’s a private company, not a co-op.
Your employer shouldn’t have any say in what you do on your own time, as long as it
Lot’s of people (not just companies) feel that way. Go to a job interview at Harvard U wearing a Confederate flag pin on the lapel of your $2,000 Armani suit jacket and see if you get the job.
Why shouldn’t a person’s job or career influence their behavior?
Is smoking, overeating or binge drinking a belief?
In my opinion, no. The company should hire and retain people who can handle disagreements diplomatically and with tolerance and who won’t let something like differing political views hinder productivity.
No, but I think there is a very clear relationship between smoking and number of sick days taken.
Well, if a company thinks that is a problem and they can figure out a way to test for alcoholism or hangovers, then I don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate against people who come in hungover a lot. I have only come to work with a hangover two or three times in my whole life; I surely wasn’t productive on those days. If someone does that a lot, then I don’t see why they company shouldn’t be allowed to let that type of person go. Unfortunately, US law doesn’t seem to allow employers this right.
We could say the same thing about overeating.
[quote=“Danimal”]Your employer shouldn’t have any say in what you do on your own time, as long as it
[quote=“Danimal”][quote]
I think an employer could make a case that it does affect job performance. Smokers get sick more often. That has been the conclusion of plenty of studies.
[/quote]
We could say the same thing about overeating.[/quote]
Exactly right. Your point is?
Why shouldn’t a person’s job or career influence their behavior?
jdsmith: It may, but shold it be a prerequisite to the job itself?
Is smoking, overeating or binge drinking a belief?
jdsmith: Nope, thinking that your boss should not be able to tell you how to live your private life is.
In my opinion, no. The company should hire and retain people who can handle disagreements diplomatically and with tolerance and who won’t let something like differing political views hinder productivity.
jdsmith:Is there a test for this?
No, but I think there is a very clear relationship between smoking and number of sick days taken.
jdsmith: Yes, and there is also an assumption here that all smokers’ sick days are related to his or her smoking.
Well, if a company thinks that is a problem and they can figure out a way to test for alcoholism or hangovers, then I don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate against people who come in hungover a lot. I have only come to work with a hangover two or three times in my whole life; I surely wasn’t productive on those days. If someone does that a lot, then I don’t see why they company shouldn’t be allowed to let that type of person go. Unfortunately, US law doesn’t seem to allow employers this right.
jdsmith: this was a joke
[/quote]
sorry for the wirdness of this post…new to the quote function 
Can we?
Can you cite a study that shows this?
Are you sure that is all the company wants? If so, then what is wrong with a company trying to manage its costs?
[quote=“Danimal”]Next they
Are you sure that is all the company wants? If so, then what is wrong with a company trying to manage its costs?
[quote=“Danimal”]Next they
double post…sorry
OK, well if it is ok to fire fat people, what about stupid people…surely they are less productive then smarter ones.
How about gassy people?
How about poor dressers?
Surely these people are a drain on the perfect people in the workplace, all the jokes and snide comments are unproductive and wasteful of the company’s assests?
Stupid people usually don’t get hired in the first place. And if they do, they can be fired. There are no advocacy groups for idiots.
Does your company have a dress code? McD’s takes care of the problem by requiring uniforms.
[quote=“Hobbes”][quote=“Danimal”]Your employer shouldn’t have any say in what you do on your own time, as long as it
[quote=“jdsmith”]OK, well if it is ok to fire fat people, what about stupid people…surely they are less productive then smarter ones.
How about gassy people?
How about poor dressers?
Surely these people are a drain on the perfect people in the workplace, all the jokes and snide comments are unproductive and wasteful of the company’s assests?[/quote]
Yes, exactly. Imagine how strange the world would be if we were legally REQUIRED to continue business dealings that we no longer wanted to continue.
Imagine that I want to quit my job, because I felt like a change. Or because my boss is gassy, or a poor dresser, or for whatever other idiosyncratic reason. Are people honestly saying that my boss could say “No, you have to give me a reason that a court would find reasonable, otherwise I can sue you.” ?
Obviously, if the employee in question has a time-specific contract that says [color=black]“I (employer) will pay you (employee) to work for me on these terms for one year, and you agree to work diligently for me for one year”[/color] then the situation is different. Being fired in these circumstances for no good reason would be a breach of contract.
But if the employment is not for a given duration, then it certainly seems odd that either the employee or the employer should be legally forced to continue a working relationship if they don’t want to.