I wonder what would happen if all the employees and middle management just said “Hell No” and walked out en masse, and if other companies put this guy on their debarred list? That would negate any need for state or federal actions. Since that probably won’t happen, maybe the city or state should step in. There is a thing called “initial conditions of employment”. When you hire on, there are expectations on both sides. Boss says “I want you to do this job with these duties. These are our rules governing conduct”. You want the job. You look at the boss’ expectations. With me so far? You say OK and he hires you. He expects you to do your work. You expect him to honor the terms under which he hired you. That is a contract. Now suddenly he changes all the rules and say “You are fired for breaking the new rule”. That is a violation of the initial conditions. Guess what. It’s lawsuit time.
I don’t go for a lot of government interference, it sometimes does more harm than good. But, sometimes government at the local, state, or federal level is needed to stop an even worse invasion of privacy.
The “lower healthcare costs” thing is pointless. In most states they can fire you at will for any reason at all- barring certain kinds of discrimiation against protected classes.
And of course I had a “no smoking at work at all policy”- I’d know that nitotine feinds would be sneaking into the closets and such to light up- and that’s a very real fire risk. If you simply don’t hire Nicotine addicts and say they won’t be tolerated, you decrease that risk.
This also reminds me of when Ford set rules for living for thier workers. The situation is similar in that the rules were not just for “during work hours”.
I think this is an important point. Whether of not the policy mentioned in the OP is legal or not, or whether other points that have been raised are good (health care costs and insurance, for example), I think what SteveG1 is saying is what’s really at issue. As I’ve read through the thread, I’ve been thinking the same thing myself. And I wondered about a few other scenarios that if this policy is allowed to stand, could be just as possible:
For example, the vegetarian boss who says, “Eating meat is unhealthy and cruel. Therefore, we demand that all our employees become vegetarians. Any employee who eats meat, even in his or her home on his or her own time, will be fired.”
Or the environmentalist boss: “Machines like ATVs and snowmobiles pollute the environment with noise and exhaust fumes. Employees who own ATVs and/or snowmobiles must sell their machines or be fired. Further, employees who use chemical fertilizers in their gardens, and/or who use a gasoline-powered lawnmower, and/or do not have a backyard composter will be fired.”
Other possible policies? How about the religious boss who decides that no employee may use any form of birth control (pills, condoms, etc.), and that female employees who get pregnant will be fired if they decide to abort the baby? The fitness-minded boss who decides that all employees must spend X amount of their own time in the gym or playing an organized sport? The anti-SUV boss who decrees that not only may SUVs not be driven to work, but may not be owned, period?
The aims of the non-smoking policy are noble, and some would undoubtedly feel the same way about the other possible policies as well. But I think the latter possibilities really demonstrate what’s at stake here: whether or not an employer has the right to dictate how employees spend their non-working time, and on what the employee may spend his or her earnings. If we can put aside the notion that “smoking is bad,” (which it is, of course) and look at it as the employer making demands that, were they not to do with smoking, would be seen as far too intrusive, then perhaps we can see the policy for what it is: an employer extending its authority into areas where it doesn’t really have any.
Even in the days when jobs were for thirty or forty years, and raises and promotions could be received by climbing ladders instead of jumping jobs, a job was little more than an opportunity to sell one’s labour. Outside the hours when one sold his or her labour, the employer held little influence on the employee (“little” because it seems reasonable to demand, for example, that employees not spend the time before work getting drunk, though it is equally reasonable to imagine that they could get drunk after that day’s work was finished). I hope we are still of that mindset, and not of the “only non-smoking, vegetarian, composting, religious, non-SUV-owners may work here” one.
They certainly could walk out- but since only a small minority are smokers, and half of those want to quit, you’d only get a small % walking.
As to the “expecations”- read the thread- this was sprung on them by suprise "
The policy was announced in 2003, implemented Jan 1 2005. The employees had a year – and company sponsored stop smoking help – to either stop smoking or go look for another job. It’s not like this was sprung on anyone. " As 5que pointed out. The employer (and the union) has every right to step in from time to time and make changes to the original hiring agreement- given due notice and all that. That was given.
No lawsuit would stand up.
And see- passing a law to prevent this is anti-freedom, not pro-freedom. As an employee- you have the right to walk out, quit and find another job. As the Employer- you have the right to hire & fire. You can’t just restrict the employer.
While I would not like that, it would be more tolerable than firing people already in place, who have come to depend on the paycheck you give them for little things like food, mortage/rent etc. At least if smoking was an issue at the time of hiring and was plainly presented as such, you would know right from the start. It would be more honest. It would not conflict with the whole concept of Initial Conditions Of Employment. It looks like “they” just looked for the easiest target to screw with/over.
The argument about the cost of the health plan may be a smoke screen also. Some companies “sell” themselves to employees by saying “we pay a few dollars less, but check out our bitchin’ health plan”. So, no, there may be no real health plan loss/cost for the company. Besides, if shaving off the health plan is that critical to the bottom line, then it indicates that the company was already in deep doo doo financially.
And they Employee has the right to walk off- even when the EmployeR has come to depend on them for little things like meeting production goals, and the shareholders/owners and management also have “little things like food, mortage/rent etc”.
“Initial Conditions Of Employment” are just that- “initial”. They are subject to change, with due notice. Due notice was given. Employees were given time & support to quit their nicotine addiction. They didn’t. They were fired. And legaly so. And morally so.
Morally? How so? What is moral about firing people over something that is nobody’s business? My heart really bleeds for the company. NOT. It is none of the company’s business. It can not and must not tell some of us what to eat, what to wear, what to not smoke etc on our time. If they are not paying me on my time, they should have no say. Due notice is a sham. Try using that argument some time with a contract. Gee, I know we agreed the car costs $35,000, but here is due notice that I will only pay $100 (now that it is in my posession). A valid agreement whether written, verbal, etc is not supposed to be unilaterally changed.
How much will the Employer and stockholders really suffer if some little guy leaves? How many of the needy desparate starving stockholders continue to smoke?
It looks like the real meat in all of this is, those with position and money can do anything they please and dictate all they want. Those who are under them are at their mercy. That is both legally and morally OK with you.
How much control of your own life are you willing to give over, to someone who will toss you whenever it is cheaper or more convenient for him? Maybe you are OK with giving so much control over to someone else, but I personally have a little bit of pride left.
What I found interesting is that the article claims the employer says he’ll tell employees to “lose weight or else,” but…as he himself says
So, if he can’t (or at least thinks he can’t) fire, deny promotions or do just about anything else “bad” to overweight employees, what’s the “or else” mean?
(Aside: this guy sounds like a real piece of work.)
You know, this quote got me thinking. When my GF worked in a probation office, she reported that the “regular” drug tests were pretty expensive (the most common ones cost about $80). Now, those tested for four different drugs, so let’s say that the “nicotine” test costs $20.
The article states that this firm employs 200. 200 nicotine tests at $20 a pop is $4,000. But the article (and the one World Eater linked to) notes that, of those 200 employees, only four were still smokers. Does each smoker really cost an extra $1,000/yr in healthcare costs to the company? If they don’t, the exercise is a waste of money.
And, even if this company succeeds in being “smoke-free,” will their health insurance costs actually decrease? There was a recent article in The Wall Street Journal about Pitney Bowes and their efforts to reduce insurance costs. They instituted employee wellness programs, gave out nicotine gum, and paid for gym memberships. As a result, their employees recorded 17% fewer doctors’ visits. In response, their healthcare insurer…raised their rates by 10%, almost the same rate-increase that the insurer’s other clients received. Unless this Michigan employer had a specific deal with his insurance company, they are not going to reduce rates simply because four more employees stopped smoking.
Also, if the company is paying people with incentive, as the article says:
“Weyers brought in weight experts to speak with employees, according to Reuters. The company also offers employees a $35 monthly incentive for joining a health club and $65 for meeting fitness goals.”
What about employees who are already skinny? They wouldn’t qualify for the $65 bonuses, would they? or do they get them automatically for being thin and having already achieved the “fitness goals”.
And are these “fitness goals” based on weight/height charts? if so, people who are bodybuilders would be considered obese by these charts, even though they are fit.
We see this statement virtually every time there is a thread of this nature. But to my mind it’s pretty much a microeconomic fantasy. It might work on a desert island with two companies, each consisting of one manager and one employer. If your one of the employees and you don’t like your manager’s intruding into your private life, right then, you just quit and go to work for the other company. Or, your original manager might see how the error of his ways will make him lose his only employee, causing his competitor to snap up all his business, and so he rescinds the policy that you didn’t like. Works fine on the desert island for everybody, and the invisible hand quickly moves to make everyone happy, or at least as happy as they can be under the circumstances.
But in real life, if the employee quits, he likely wonders how he’s going to make the mortgage/rent, car payments, and insurance premiums, and how long it’s going to take to find another job. Does the employer face anything like this dreadful uncertainty as a result of firing someone? The positions of employer and employed are absolutely not equal in this matter.
And if the culture of employment moves toward the kind of restriction imposed at the company mentioned in the OP, where else is there really to go? I for one think we have an interest in not letting things move too far in this direction, or else we all really will becom serfs.
Most famously, Ford’s detectives spied on workers to catch them drinking, which was essentially illegal at the time, which was the 1920s. Since you mentioned this, can you provide some more examples of their rules, or guide us to a good link?
This one has lots of information on Ford’s practices and even a complete listing of where the author got this information. Some of it is pretty incredible stuff by today’s standards.
Too little information, too many assumptions. You are just working yourself up. If the fitness goals are only weight/BMI based, then yes, you have a point. But there’s also blood pressure, body fat, cholesterol levels and other ways to measure fitness. Another way may be to take everyone’s specific information at day 1 and designs goals around that. The fit person must maintain, while the unfit needs to improve over each period. The guys whose cholesterol is a little high doesn’t need to come down as much as the guy whose cholesterol is through the roof, yet the latter doesn’t have to reach the level of the former to qualify. Both have attainable, yet different goals.
Don’t always, automatically assume the worst.
If the employer states that in six months everyone must dye their pubic hair pink, you have six months to plot your exit strategy, or get used to pink pubes. If the employee doesn’t address the issue until the 179th day, that’s the employee’s decision.
No doubt, there are ‘Company’ towns, where you either work for the main employer, support the main employer, or you’re unemployed. In these instances, the main employer does wield much more power, both on and off the job. However, if the pink pubes are intolerable to an individual, it’s the infividual’s duty to have an escape plan. We allow complete freedom of movement in this country. You can look for a job in other towns and states, and it’s much easier to do so in the last 10 years, thanks to the internet. You don’t have to work for the company that forces you to dye your short and curlies. There are other jobs. And if not dying is so important to the individual, but not the overall workforce, it’s the individual’s responsibility to effect personal change, not the company’s responsibility to cater to the individual.
This particular absurd example would probably not stand up to a lawsuit; I find it hard to imagine that a policy that included inspections to verify pink pubes could stand up in court.
But the situation you describe is practically feudalism, the only difference being that, unlike in the middle ages, the serfs are free to pull up stakes and enter the service of another lord. And instead of the castle we now have an office building, warehouse, or factory.
I think we all agree that the impact of smoking can be addressed by other means than forbidding off-hours tobacco use, so let’s focus on the generalities of how much employers should be able to obtrude themselves into their workers’ private lives. Employees make certain concessions as a condition of employment–they agree to show up, do the work, abide by various restrictions as to outside business dealings, wear the right clothes, and so on. These sorts of concessions are entirely reasonable, because they are mostly based on the same kind of obligations that would exist in any business transaction. (I might except the reference to dress codes here, because that seems to be more a cultural artifact that reinforces itself by mutual expectations on the part of the people involved). At any rate, while allowing the concessions I mentioned, it’s my firm conviction that your boss shouldn’t be able to ask any more of you than you would ask of, say, a plumber that you hired to fix a clogged drain. If you give a flying rat’s patootie whether the plumber lights up after he finishes the job and leaves your house, IMO you have serious issues that disable you from minding your own business and letting others mind theirs.
I’m not worked up. I don’t work there, so I’m just discussing. This is a discussion forum, right?
The original point of this fitness/smoking thing was to lower healthcare costs (supposidly). Back to the matter of money, how much does it cost to hire people to take and track all this specific information. Is this all done on company time which would cut into production (thus losing money) or will the employees be required to do this on their OWN time, without any pay (other than the $65 they get for hitting their fitness goals, of course!)
And now, based on your text above, have tests being taken for blood pressure, cholesterol, etc. Each of those tests require additional money to be spent, even if it’s only to have someone qualified to take the readings. And they’d be doing these readings/tests repeatedly in order to record results.