The article says the obese are legally protected, and that no lawsuits have been filed, but are there grounds for them in this case?
Feyd Baron, DoC
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
I would think that this might fall under discrimination. I'd certainly be trying to use that as a cause of action!
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Do you think they'll change the company name from Weyco to Slimco?
I don't think that is a very productive approach. What if someone turns to anorexia or bulimia in a desperate attempt to keep their job? Those sorts of dangers aren't as likely to be there with smoking.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
If there's any justice, the owner of this company will be run over by a bus while jay walking.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote: A ban on tobacco use -- whether at home or at the workplace -- led four employees to quit their jobs last week at Okemos, Michigan-based Weyco Inc., which handles insurance claims.
I can't believe it's legal to ban employees from smoking at home. It's not, right?
[ January 27, 2005, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: Rappin' Ronnie Reagan ]
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
Well, it seems the first story warranted a second. Smokers are protected in some states by discrimination laws, but only about half.
I can see the reasoning, I just expected more resistance to have occured by now.
Feyd Baron, DoC
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Well, if they can test you for illegal drugs, why not legal ones that seem to influence absenteeism and health costs?
Posted by Vána (Member # 6593) on :
Smoking influences absenteeism?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
It was at the bottom of the article.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
It sounds eerily like Gattica to me. Fat employees are next, then who? Diabetics? Women of child-bearing age? People with kids in general? I would think that a single parent is probably the most expensive to insure. Not only do you have the kids, even though you aren't paying the premiums on them, they still use the insurance, you also have kiddie sicknesses like colds and flu which causes parent to miss work to care for them, then parent gets them too and brings them to work and gets everyone else sick. At least for absenteeism.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
If smoking is not a protected status, then he was in fact not doing anything illegal.
I find myself in a curious position here. As an employer I want to say I respect the rights of employers to place rules on who they hire and retain, so long as those rules don't conflict with protected statuses, like gender, religion, race, etc.
As a fellow human being, that will be in the job market again soon, I can't imagine someone telling me I was too overweight to get a job.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
I don't like his tactics, but I do like that he's not making demands without giving the support necessary to meet those demands. He's providing bonuses for healthy choices. I like that.
Like I said, I don't like his tactics. OTOH, the news report certainly wasn't disposed toward portraying him very kindly.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I honestly do not understand why this can be legal. (I believe that it is; I just can't understand WHY.) If the legal defense for abortions (as I understand it) rests on a right to privacy, shouldn't stuff like this be NONE of an employer's business?
I understand saying that an employee cannot smoke during business hours (I think that is unreasonable to not allow them to use their break time, but I can see how it would be legal), but what right does an employer have to dictate whether employees do something perfectly legal in their own home?!
I'm not buying the increased absenteeism excuse. There are lots of other things that would increase absenteeism. And if that is the actual problem, then fire them on the basis of regularly exceeding their allowed days off.
I think smoking is dreadful, and heartily encourage employers who wish to assist their employees to quit. I am in favor of not allowing smoking in all indoors public places -- means more places I can actually breathe. But this is blackmail, and intrusion of privacy, and it is NOT ok.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Is it blackmail or coercion?
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
quote: (I think that is unreasonable to not allow them to use their break time, but I can see how it would be legal),
As an asthmatic who has worked with smokers, I do find this reasonable. First, when someone comes back from break reeking of smoke, that affects both the health of other employees and how they relate to the smoker (Ie, I cannot stand to talk to someone who has reeking breath). Also, I cannot count the times I have entered ( or chosen not to enter a store) and had to walk past that stores employees, huddled at the entrance smoking.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
dpr, I have the same problems. (Well, it's not precisely asthma is my case but severe respiratory allergies.) I wish that no one I had to come in contact with smoked -- it's hard for me to be around them, particularly when my allergies are flaring up.
But I think there has to be some limit on where my rights end and theirs begin. And I think dictating what employees do in their off-time DEFINITELY crosses the line; and dictating what they do in their legally-required break time comes uncomfortably close.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Reminds me of the lady with the bacon sandwich.
Anyway...
I was thinking about this some more last night. Overweight people already have eating disorders in many cases. Their satiety responses don't work, or are overriden by other factors. It is so dangerous to pressure them to diet in this way.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ooops, hit add reply too soon.
kq, you're right -- coercion is a more accurate description. Either way, I think it is unconscionable and should be illegal.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
mt, it reminds me of her as well. Except that in her case, the employer was dictating what she could do in the workplace.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
You can control whether or not you smoke. You can't control diabetes and reproduction is the point of existence and not always intended either. If someone is actively trying to quit, then I don't believe they should be able to be discriminated against.
The bacon issue was something that occurred at work and directly affected coworkers. Whether or not a smoking ban is legally and morally defensible, the bacon thing definitely was.
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
I don't think employers should dictate what employees do at home, either..although I don't see much difference between tobacco and pot. I do think if illegal drug testing has been upheld, this just may be.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Bacon sandwich? Will someone please explain that one?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I think whether someone else is eating a bacon sandwich is similar to someone coming in from a smoke break smelling of smoke. Though if they live with someone who smokes they may still have that problem and not be able to do anything about it.
We had tenants who smoked during my second pregnancy. :sick:
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Thanks, rivka. Hmmmm. It seems different to me, but I can't pinpoint why.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Its not the same because it violated the company's religious beliefs. By eating and preparing the non-kosher food there is made it unclean for the woman's Muslim coworkers and the company's clients.