But I
[quote]Yes, it’s ok…because the rule is NO SMOKING. Simple. If the company wants a new rule saying NO MEAT EATERS, that’s fine too. If the workers don’t like it, they can go someplace else to work or start their own company. A company is not a democracy nor a free-for-all. Rules are made by the management and no one is forcing malcontents to stay.
[/quote]
Well…
Not everyone has a choice. It’s not that easy for everyone to just go out and find another job. If you’re already working for the company, it’s a different situation. If you know this before going to an interview, and you’re a smoker, then you can just avoid them. If you’re fired for smoking and don’t sign any agreements to stop, then you should be compensated for being terminated or resigning.
[quote=“Hobbes”]Imagine how strange the world would be if we were legally REQUIRED to continue business dealings that we no longer wanted to continue. . . 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.[/quote]
It may seem odd, but often that’s what the law dictates.
I would think if employees who were fired for smoking at home filed wrongful termination suits in various different states, a fair number of them would win their suits.
Are you sure that is all the company wants? If so, then what is wrong with a company trying to manage its costs? [/quote]
There
j99, I’m 100% with you if the employment is based on contract for a specific period of time (e.g. [color=black]“A agrees to pay B $______ every month for 1 year. B agrees to perform ______ job for A for 1 year.”[/color])
But if it is not that kind of employment contract, then the idea of compensation becomes harder to understand. Yes, being fired hurts B (how much --as you very correctly point out-- depends on the market for B’s skills). But similarly, B quitting hurts A. How much, again depends largely on the market (i.e. how easy are B’s skills to replace), but almost certainly A will also lose money in the transition and training costs for getting another worker “up to speed” with how A’s company works.
Should B be required to pay compensation to her employer if she quits and takes another job?
ppspublishers.com/articles/a … erview.htm
[quote]A Michigan company’s recent decision to stop hiring smokers has angered employment lawyers who allege that the new no-smoking policy reeks of discrimination. . . Moreover, they argue, it monitors what people do outside the workplace and discriminates against their lifestyles, a practice that is banned in 29 states that have smokers’ rights statutes, also known as “lifestyle rights laws,” which prohibit employers from discriminating against smokers. Michigan is one of 21 states that do not have such laws. Others include California, Florida, Ohio and Texas. . .
In the recent Michigan case . . . some lawyers remain skeptical about the new policy. . . Shapiro, a former litigator in employment discrimination cases, said before the recent Michigan policy, she had never heard of a corporate ban on all smoking. "It’s a new one to me,"Shapiro said. “I’ll be very curious to see if it does survive … .I think it would be difficult to make an argument that someone’s smoking off the job is influencing their performance on the job.”[/quote]
It may seem odd, but often that’s what the law dictates.
I would think if employees who were fired for smoking at home filed wrongful termination suits in various different states, a fair number of them would win their suits.[/quote]
:bravo: Very good point, MT. I think I have been a little sloppy in some of my posts on this thread in terms of making it clear whether I am making normative or positive arguments regarding the law. Your post is very helpful in (a) setting forth a useful summary of the positive state of the law (in the US), and (b) reminding me to be more clear about which kind of argument I am making.
From a normative perspective, you know where I stand: I basically think that employers and employees should both be able to enter and exit the employment relationship at will (with the exceptions for protected groups that I have mentioned).
From a positive perspective, I agree with you completely. There are probably states where the Weyco employees would have a good case, and some where they would not. Not sure where Michigan fits in (if that is where the potential litigation is to take place).
Even in states which have allowed at-will employment rights to decay, however, the employees would still need to make an argument such as (1) or (3) in your summary. It would not be enough to say “Firing me for smoking doesn’t make sense – and is therefore illegal”, because not making sense isn’t against the law, but of course breaking a contract is.
Meanwhile…on the otherside of the rainbow…
[quote]
Smokers not welcome at San Francisco’s outdoor attractions
SAN FRANCISCO
[quote]j99, I’m 100% with you if the employment is based on contract for a specific period of time (e.g. “A agrees to pay B $______ every month for 1 year. B agrees to perform ______ job for A for 1 year.”)
But if it is not that kind of employment contract, then the idea of compensation becomes harder to understand. Yes, being fired hurts B (how much --as you very correctly point out-- depends on the market for B’s skills). But similarly, B quitting hurts A. How much, again depends largely on the market (i.e. how easy are B’s skills to replace), but almost certainly A will also lose money in the transition and training costs for getting another worker “up to speed” with how A’s company works.
Should B be required to pay compensation to her employer if she quits and takes another job?
[/quote]
The compensation I was speaking of would be in a contract situation. If A doesn’t need a reason to fire then I guess they can go right ahead and do it.
B would be quitting because of the new company rules. If A loses money, that’s A’s fault for implementing a smoking ban. If A fires the employee for smoking, it’s also A’s fault. Not B’s. B didn’t sign a contract agreeing not to smoke before the rule. “A” should pay.
By “smoking” I mean “smoking off company grounds”. Now if A bans smoking on company grounds then I can understand the new rule. If A doesn’t want smoking on their property then they can by all means put a stop to it. If you want to smoke in your car or at home or anywhere else besides at work then A doesn’t have a right to invade B’s privacy.
[quote="j99l88e77If you want to smoke in your car or at home or anywhere else besides at work then A doesn’t have a right to invade B’s privacy.[/quote]
Bingo.
There is little more to this argument for me than this statement. My off time is mine, and unless the company provides housing for me, what I do in my house is not their beewax.
If I was considering hiring someone and discovered that they smoked cigarettes, I would consider them lacking in inteligence and/or self control and would perhaps pass them over for that reason. If I discovered that they never smoked marijuana however, I would consider them lacking in imagination and a sense of adventure and would perhaps pass them over for that reason. It would depend on the kind of job they were applying for.
I applaud that company and hope many others will follow their example. Anything that contributes to a reduction of smoking is an entirely positive thing, in my opinion.
Smoking is an appalling habit that causes far more harm than many other kinds of behaviour that are strictly proscribed by law. I would be very glad if smoking were made a criminal offence punishable by a heavy fine or imprisonment.
They work from home, so it’s home based employment. Why should they go somewhere else?
They can always take smoko breaks outside.
So, if what you do in your off time is not a concern to your employer…
then why should your employer pay higher insurance premiums to cover your more frequent illnesses and why should he cover the costs associated with your inability to work during your employer’s time due to your illness related to an activity that you engage in during your off time?
[quote=“Omniloquacious”]I applaud that company and hope many others will follow their example. Anything that contributes to a reduction of smoking is an entirely positive thing, in my opinion.
Smoking is an appalling habit that causes far more harm than many other kinds of behaviour that are strictly proscribed by law. I would be very glad if smoking were made a criminal offence punishable by a heavy fine or imprisonment.[/quote]
It would be prudent to think about the lessons that the Prohibition Era taught us…
The company is firing people for behaviors that the empoyees are engaging in in the privacy of their own homes. This is vastly overstepping their bounds.
Imagine if a company prohibited you from enjoying a burger at lunchtime, or from engaging in certain kinds of sexual activities the boss disapproved of. Scary.
I’m not a smoker, but I believe that smokers should have the right to smoke if they wish, as long as those around them do not object.
Interesting how one
So, if what you do in your off time is not a concern to your employer…
then why should your employer pay higher insurance premiums to cover your more frequent illnesses and why should he cover the costs associated with your inability to work during your employer’s time due to your illness related to an activity that you engage in during your off time?[/quote]
Read back a few posts. I said that if because of smoking I were to receive fewer benefits, I would understand and accept that.
The point here is it is not my boss’s job to make me healthy.
Also, I think it is danergous to generalize about individual persons’ health, or sick days related to their smoking. If 75 out 100 smokers’ sick days are smoking related, than it stands that 25 are not.
So, if I smoke then every sick day I take may not be caused by or related to smoking, right?
.
Answering the questions about obesity…
[quote]Obesity had a significant but negative impact on work. Twenty-two percent of workers in the study were classified as obese, and 4.5 percent as severely obese. Obese employees reported more difficulty getting along with coworkers, while severely obese workers missed significantly more days of work.
Physical inactivity and obesity have well-known negative effects on health and health care costs. Ill health obviously leads to increased health costs because of absences from work. However, relatively little is known about how these risk factors affect indirect costs, including costs related to decreased productivity on the job.[/quote]
[quote=“OutofChaos”]In fact I
I know I’m jumping in this argument a little late but for the sake of discussion let me throw out this statement:
“It is hard to see how society has a strong interest in discouraging people from participating in legal activies under the law, such as smoking.”
What one is quickly faced with here is this conundrum: your livelihood or your giving up your legal right to do . What is then, freedom?