« This tears it ... ANY Dem who signs | Main | Unadulterated politics in service of lawbreakers »

May 12, 2005

Watch the nannystaters yawn ...

This is just plain wrong, but I don't expect any of the usual "civil rights" crowd to do more than shrug:

More companies are taking action against employees who smoke off-duty, and, in an extreme trend that some call troubling, some are now firing or banning the hiring of workers who light up even on their own time.

The outright bans raise new questions about how far companies can go in regulating workers' behavior when they are off the clock.

Last I looked, tobacco is not illegal. While a business has a legitimate interest in what happens at the workplace, the strict burden of if they have, or should have any say, in what a worker does when away from the work place (as long as the activity is legal) is with the employer.

Just imagine the hew and cry if an employer fired or refused to hire gays because of "health concerns."

Posted by Darleen at May 12, 2005 06:43 AM

Comments

One of the clients I consulted for was on the way to doing this. They are a printing company that also wrote control software for printing presses... and they banned smoking outright in all their facilities. More than that, you weren't allowed to smoke outside the door. You also weren't allowed to smoke in the parking lot... or even your car in the lot.

The best was when they sent out a message to everyone who was smoking on the railroad tracks off the property. Supposedly they got a complaint from the railroad company about the smokers. The supposed worry was that cigarette butts on the tracks might derail a train. I'm not joking.

I'm sure the managers at the company are drooling over the posibility of just firing people.

Posted by: Nick at May 12, 2005 08:10 AM

I have absolutely no problem with this. I think the extent to which the government is allowed to tell people whom they can and can't hire or fire needs to be kept to a bare minimum. If I, as an employer, want to fire you because you smoke, or because you drink, or because you have a gambling problem, or because you talk too loudly, or because your nose does that whistling thing, I want to be free to do that.

Likewise, if you want to quit because I'm obnoxious, I want you to be free to do that, too.

Back in elementary school, we were all told by our teachers that we had to learn to get along as adults. It wasn't true. As adults, we get to choose.

Posted by: Jeff Harrell at May 12, 2005 08:54 AM

Insane! Let people do what the hell they want as long as it doesn't affect others or their work. If some coworkers get offended by the smell of their clothes or something, it's a question for the management, just like in any other work-behavior related situation. But don't adopt blanket rules like these. Crazy...

And no, I don't believe employers should be free to fire people at will, for whatever reason, for reasons too numerous to go into here. But the main reason being that the kind of uncertainty that creates leads to a terrible economic climate.

/Mike

Posted by: Mike at May 12, 2005 09:08 AM

Gotta add this:

"And legal experts fear companies will try to control other aspects of employees' off-duty lifestyle, a trend that is already happening. Some companies are firing, suspending or charging higher insurance premiums to workers who are overweight, have high cholesterol or participate in risky activities."

INSANE! So if I like to go skateboarding or play hockey, some companies would not hire me because of risky activities?

The real problem here is of course that insurance premiums and health care costs are going up... this country is going crazy. Stop worrying about what will happen to Social Security in 40 years, and start worrying what happens to health insurance costs right now!

/Mike

Posted by: Mike at May 12, 2005 09:15 AM

Jeff

As a private employer, if s/he wants to restrict their employees to single, left-handed, vegetarian Lithuanians who square-dance, fine.

However, if our labor laws as currently constituted do not allow an employer to fire for non-work related activities or due to race/religion/ethnicity, then the employer should have to follow the law.

Ethically, you are correct. If I own the business, I should get the final say so, even if the reasons are stupid.

This firing of people for their activities that don't have anything to do with the workplace is a stupid idea.

Posted by: Darleen at May 12, 2005 01:11 PM

I'm conflicted on this one. From the employee's standpoint, I can sympathize with the view that what one does off the clock is none of their damn' business.

On the other hand, from the employer's viewpoint, I remember reading quite some time ago about the high differential between smokers and non-smokers in terms of cost to the company. That is not just higher medical insurance costs because of increased usage, but also absenteeism and reduced performance because of smoking impaired health.

Here's a link to a place in Sacramento, The Ison Group, that practices workplace law and posts some facts on the issue:

http://www.theisonlawgroup.com/?news%7C1058

A couple of quotes from the Ison site:

"According to the Centers for Disease Control our nation’s cost of smoking is $3,391 a year per smoker - - $1,760 for lost productivity and $1,623 in excess medical expenditures. The economic burden of smokers is more than $75 billion per year in medical expenditures and $80 billion a year from lost productivity."

"The American Lung Association states that a smoking employee costs the employer at least $1,000 a year more than a non-smoking employee in direct and indirect health care costs. It is estimated that an employer’s health insurance costs could be reduced by almost 20% if it employed only non-smokers."

"There are also numerous indirect costs to the employer from a smoking employee, including increased employee absenteeism, decreased productivity on the job, and increased early retirement due to ill health. Smoking employees are absent an average of 6.5 more days a year than non-smokers."

"Other studies show that accidents, injury rates and disciplinary problems are higher among smokers."

"California is not one of those twenty-nine states with smokers’ rights protections. Generally, unless the company’s actions can be shown to violate a state or federal law or discriminate against a protected class, smokers may have an uphill battle challenging such policies."

"Few court decisions have addressed these types of policies. According to the National Law Journal, a 10th Circuit Court of Appeals case upheld the right of the Oklahoma City Fire Department to have a no-smoking policy, finding that the rule had a legitimate business purpose."

Posted by: Dave at May 12, 2005 03:21 PM