no smoking

nobody · Post by **nobody** » January 25, 2005, 6:15 am

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld ... -headlines

Weyco Inc., a health benefits administrator based in Okemos, Mich., adopted a policy Jan. 1 that allows employees to be fired if they smoke, even if the smoking happens after business hours or at home.

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » January 25, 2005, 8:21 am

Is that legal at all?

Truant · Post by **Truant** » January 25, 2005, 10:02 am

No, as long as smoking is legal, this is illegal.

Expect judicial intervention.

Talelor · Post by **Talelor** » January 25, 2005, 11:04 am

Ignorant. Enough said, G'day.

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » January 25, 2005, 11:35 am

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » January 25, 2005, 11:48 am

Well, not that I agree with it, but Weyco promotes healthy living. Its kinda hard for them to promote it when they themselves are not practicing what they preach.

But again, I don't agree with the after work part.

If the founder didnt want to pay for the results of smoking, he should of developped a clause that says something like, medical coverage will be void if the employee has the following problems, and list all the smoking sicknesses you can get.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » January 25, 2005, 12:14 pm

It's Michigan.. what'd you expect!

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » January 25, 2005, 12:24 pm

What's wrong with Michigan?

It is a company policy. Has nothing to do with what state it is in.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » January 25, 2005, 12:31 pm

The 4 that were fired over this new policy just won the lottery.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » January 25, 2005, 12:32 pm

Aslanna wrote:What's wrong with Michigan?

What's right with Michigan? It's close to Canada and therefore tainted by the political corruption of the social infrastructure of the denizens of that locality!

Or something.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » January 25, 2005, 12:34 pm

Moore is from Flint Michigan, need I say more...lololol.

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » January 25, 2005, 12:56 pm

The only reason these people will more than likely win their lawsuit (if they file one) is that the company made a policy change after they were already working at the company. Had the company made the policy change and grandfathered in people already working there, and just not hired smokers then they wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on. As a smoker seeing this type of thing pisses me off to no end, but smokers are not a protected class, so companies are free to discriminate if they wish. I've actually been hoping for a case like this to come along, hopefully it will start the ball rolling toward ending some of these dubious anti-smoking policies companies have been implementing.

There's a company here in Houston that has a similar policy, including a quarterly test. If you are found to have been using illegal narcotics they will typically send you to rehab, if you are found to have used tobacco you are fired.

nobody · Post by **nobody** » January 25, 2005, 1:04 pm

i've heard an employer can legaly ask you if you are a smoker and not condsider you for employment. if health is the reason though then why don't they fire overweight people for eating cheeseburgers?

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » January 25, 2005, 1:08 pm

nobody wrote:i've heard an employer can legaly ask you if you are a smoker and not condsider you for employment. if health is the reason though then why don't they fire overweight people for eating cheeseburgers?

Because exercise can counter the effects of a cheeseburger. Nothing counters smoking.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » January 25, 2005, 1:14 pm

And yet some people can smoke 60 a day until they're 80 years old then die in their sleep.
Not everyone who smokes dies from it. And giving up smoking takes just as much effort as losing 150 pounds of lard.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » January 25, 2005, 1:29 pm

WELCOME KIDS TO THE LAND OF THE FREE!

j/k

Bars and workplaces have been cigarette free for about a year now in Ireland, and bar takings have gone down something like 20-25%. Frankly it is fucking insane that this sort of marginalization of a particular part of society is allowed to happen.

They are introducing a smoke free environment in Belfast in the next two yearsish and I can guarantee people will be telling the government to shove their poxy fucking law.

I dunno what type of ignorant fuckwit pulls a rule out like that for their firm, do they honestly think they can get away with it? Welcome to Nazi Germany 2005 FUCK YEAH!

Human beings are so definately regressing.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » January 25, 2005, 1:45 pm

I don't think that quitting smoking is necessarily more difficult than losing weight, depending on the person losing the weight and the amount of weight to be lost.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · January 25, 2005, 1:48 pm

Teenybloke wrote:WELCOME KIDS TO THE LAND OF THE FREE!

j/k

Bars and workplaces have been cigarette free for about a year now in Ireland, and bar takings have gone down something like 20-25%. Frankly it is fucking insane that this sort of marginalization of a particular part of society is allowed to happen.

They are introducing a smoke free environment in Belfast in the next two yearsish and I can guarantee people will be telling the government to shove their poxy fucking law.

I dunno what type of ignorant fuckwit pulls a rule out like that for their firm, do they honestly think they can get away with it? Welcome to Nazi Germany 2005 FUCK YEAH!

Human beings are so definately regressing.

Ack!

I agree with every word.

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » January 25, 2005, 1:55 pm

Like I said in another thread, it is easy to quit smoking so long as you actually want to quit. The hard part is convincing yourself that you really want to quit. You basically have to convince yourself that you hate smoking, you don't find it enjoyable, you hate the way it makes you smell, etc. Interestingly, I think the fact that so many smoker have to train their minds to think like that so they can sucessfully quit is why so many former smokers go to the other extreme and become the extreme anti-smoking crowd.

One other thing I have noticed. Everytime I have had sucess quitting was during a period of time where I had started working out on a regular basis again. I found working out significantly reduced my cravings, and motivated me not undo my hard work by smoking. Inevitably when I stopped working out, I eventually started smoking again.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » January 25, 2005, 2:05 pm

"No smoking in bars, and soon no drinking and no talking"

I can't say I have any sympathy for smokers, but that still pretty ridiculous =p

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » January 25, 2005, 2:12 pm

Kargyle wrote:it is easy to quit smoking so long as you actually want to quit

Kargyle wrote:Everytime I have had sucess quitting

I can quit anytime I want, for 55 minutes

Siji · Post by **Siji** » January 25, 2005, 2:14 pm

When I can walk up to you in a restaraunt and take a crap on the floor next to your table for you to enjoy during your stay, then I'll consider tolerating your second hand smoke being forced into my lungs in the same said restaraunt.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » January 25, 2005, 2:22 pm

If you think they are the same thing you are the one who is the ball licker.

You going to do that to every car that goes past? Or everytime someone heats their house and the power station 100 miles away spews out yet more crap for YOU to breathe.

Perspective please

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » January 25, 2005, 2:27 pm

For the record. I don't want to quit smoking. I like it. The times I have quit have been because it interrefed with my work out, which I wanted to do more than I wanted to smoke. It is more or less that simple. Eventually I'll decide I want to get in shape again, and I'll more than likely quit smoking again, but for now I'm content being lazy.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » January 25, 2005, 2:29 pm

Teenybloke wrote:If you think they are the same thing you are the one who is the ball licker.

You going to do that to every car that goes past? Or everytime someone heats their house and the power station 100 miles away spews out yet more crap for YOU to breathe.

Perspective please

Difference being I don't have to take a crap at your table, and you don't have to smoke in public gathering places. Perspective please.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 25, 2005, 2:33 pm

Deguild smokers as well! Those extra smoke breaks hurt raids!!11!

Tenuvil · Post by **Tenuvil** » January 25, 2005, 2:34 pm

What a difference ten years makes.

In the early 90s you could smoke in a mall, hell you could walk around smoking in most stores. Smoking in work was accepted. No smoking in a bar? HERESY~ You'd get your ass kicked for suggesting such a thing!

Now smokers are being psychologically bullied into thinking that it's shameful and bad to smoke. It's become so politically incorrect to smoke a cigarette that most people quit rather than deal with the incessant harping by others and threats of second hand smoke lawsuits.

What's next? High fat foods? Alcohol?

We are becoming the society shown in "Demolition Man".

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » January 25, 2005, 2:35 pm

And you don't have to go to public gathering places. If air quality is such a concern for you then you should be walking around with a respirator anyway. The car you surely drive does far more to pollute the air you breathe than I could ever hope to. If it is a matter of you finding the smell offensive, then what is your solution to people that wear perfume?

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » January 25, 2005, 2:44 pm

Kargyle wrote:And you don't have to go to public gathering places.

That's like saying I should be allowed to talk at the movies because I bought a ticket. Complete nonsense

I can't wait until Jersey passes the restuarant/bar no smoking law. It's a beautiful thing going out in Manhattan nowadays.

Ohh, and cars built today give off extrodinarily small amounts of carcinogenic materials compared to even 10 years ago.

cid · Post by **cid** » January 25, 2005, 2:46 pm

Tenuvil wrote: We are becoming the society shown in "Demolition Man".

I still do not understand the 3 clams shells

Nick · Post by **Nick** » January 25, 2005, 2:47 pm

Public gathering places........

When in the HISTORY of mankind has this seemed like a logical thing to do apart from now?

And why now?

Hysterical fearmongering.

Do you know how infinitely small your chances are of experiencing damage from passive smoking?

Are you actually still comparing the passing of feacal matter from your bare ass onto my plate as the same as me lighting up a marlboro 30 feet from you? No wonder you would need smoking banned, you see things in a particularly sick way apparantly.

Edit: Lynks, the point still stands, and still, a car pollutes much more than a cigarette. FACT

I can however understand people who don't smoke not liking smoke. Still, Tenuvil is totally right.

It is yet more farcical hysteria imo

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 25, 2005, 2:56 pm

Tenuvil wrote:
What's next? High fat foods? Alcohol?

We are becoming the society shown in "Demolition Man".

Have you noticed that all the McDonalds commercials only have black people in them now? It it a demographics thing or are they secretly racist and trying to kill off the african american population?

That double quarterpounder hors d'oeuvres commercial is funny but man, that's some serious gut bombs to be eating as snacks!

**"hors d'oeuvres" is a bitch to spell!

Homercles · Post by **Homercles** » January 25, 2005, 3:00 pm

Having some say in the hiring of employees, I can definitely tell you smoking is taken into consideration. In my experience, a smokers work production is signaficantly less than a non smoker. The smoke breaks alone detract from production. And if a smoker doesnt get a regular break, then they become antsy and agitated. This leads to poor work quality, lowered production, and an overall lousy attitude.

And quite honestly, we dont want to have our employees out on a job site smoking. It makes for a crappy representation of our company.

If I have a choice (between equal applicants) of hiring a smoker or a non-smoker....its non-smoker 100% of the time.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » January 25, 2005, 3:00 pm

oor derves!

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » January 25, 2005, 3:12 pm

Haven't we had the (secondhand) smoking debate here at least three times already?

Indeed we have.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » January 25, 2005, 3:14 pm

Just out of interest, on topic again, can an emplyer actually do what is being claimed here?

In the land of the free?

?????

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » January 25, 2005, 3:16 pm

Anyways, I'm glad my city is smoke free in public areas. It makes life more enjoyable, ie not coughing every 2 minutes because some jackass smoking 3 cigarettes sat next to you in a Tim Horton's .

nobody · Post by **nobody** » January 25, 2005, 3:17 pm

Aslanna wrote:Haven't we had the (secondhand) smoking debate here at least three times already?

Indeed we have.

haven't we had the bush sucks, liberal's are commies, iraq was right/wrong, abortion is good/bad, dane's are dirty whore's (except you hesten) debate at least a hundred times already?

indeed we have.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » January 25, 2005, 3:20 pm

Teenybloke wrote:Lynks, the point still stands, and still, a car pollutes much more than a cigarette. FACT

You don't see people ramming cars into bars/restaurants and leave them running now do you? They have never made it illegal to smoke outside, just indoors. FACT.

If people were to be arrested for smoking outside, I would be agaisnt it, but you can cry all you want, smoking inside is bad for everyone in the room.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » January 25, 2005, 3:25 pm

Have you ever considered all the nasty stuff in the air that a healthy layer of tar inside your lungs protects you from?

You might get that from diesels, not from a gas motor though.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » January 25, 2005, 3:41 pm

Teenybloke wrote:Are you actually still comparing the passing of feacal matter from your bare ass onto my plate as the same as me lighting up a marlboro 30 feet from you?

I said at your table, not on your plate. doing it on your plate would be like having a smoker blow their smoke directly in your face.. and heaven knows that never happens.. oh wait.. it does.

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » January 25, 2005, 3:51 pm

Lynks wrote:
Teenybloke wrote:Lynks, the point still stands, and still, a car pollutes much more than a cigarette. FACT
You don't see people ramming cars into bars/restaurants and leave them running now do you? They have never made it illegal to smoke outside, just indoors. FACT.

If people were to be arrested for smoking outside, I would be agaisnt it, but you can cry all you want, smoking inside is bad for everyone in the room.

Say what you want, but it should be the choice of the business owner. If he/she chooses to cater to smokers or non-smokers, or have a section for each that is his/her perrogative, and it shouldn't be the place of the government to tell them how they can run their business. And there are places that have made it illegal to smoke in city limits. I can't remember where, but it was a town in California.

I've actually been sitting in the smoking section at a restraunt, and some non-smoker actually had the audacity to start complaining about my smoking. Never mind the fact that they were sitting in the smoking section. It is one of the few times I have told someone to shut the fuck up. It isn't like I go into the non-smoking section and complain about all of the people not smoking.

Honestly, I don't care that people don't like smoking, and I don't care about their campaign against smoking. The only thing that really irritates me is the sanctimonious, self righteous, holier than thou attitude of many non-smokers. Smoking kills. Well good for you, then I'll be dead soon and you won't have to worry about me anymore. People always complain that second hand smoke is bad for them, and that is why they are against smoking, but I would be willing to bet that drunk drivers kill far more people each year than second hand smoke does. So maybe people should be more interested in campaigning against alcohol than smoking because someone who drinks is probably more likely to kill you than someone who smokes. (I have no statistics on the drinking thing, it is meant in more of a rhetorical way)

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » January 25, 2005, 3:59 pm

People do campaign agaisnt people of drink and drive.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » January 25, 2005, 3:59 pm

So in essense Siji, you are sitting on that comparison.....

And pollution from cars would NEVER seep into the air of a cafe or eatery in the middle of the city, OH NEVER.

Ban smoking in bars, keep guns legal.

ok...........

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » January 25, 2005, 4:03 pm

If you have a problem with someone smoking in a bar tough shit. Because the liquor that you are drinking if you don't smoke is really a lot better right ? I can garuntee you that in the area I live in, there are more smokers than non. (by the way I do not smoke). Some of you are being total fucking drama queens. "oh my god, like - if someone is smoking around me I cough every two minutes" it must be fun to live in such an overly dramatic world as yours

If you want the truth out of me, I am much more offended by having some 300 pound fat slob sitting at the table next to me then a smoker.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » January 25, 2005, 4:13 pm

Kargyle wrote: Smoking kills. Well good for you, then I'll be dead soon and you won't have to worry about me anymore.

Actually, we do have to worry about you. Your medical expenses while alive are more than double that of the non-smoker. And since insurance is a pool, well, you get the idea.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » January 25, 2005, 4:15 pm

Proof Chid?

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » January 25, 2005, 4:17 pm

Look it up on the american heart assn site, it's all there. I'm busy

Homercles · Post by **Homercles** » January 25, 2005, 4:25 pm

His Medical insurance may be higher, but he dies earlier. Thus saving the taxpayers his Social Security and extended health coverage.

Smokers are profit makers. They pay rediculous taxes so they can kill themselves earlier.

Win-win for non smokers

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » January 25, 2005, 4:25 pm

Teenybloke wrote:So in essense Siji, you are sitting on that comparison.....

And pollution from cars would NEVER seep into the air of a cafe or eatery in the middle of the city, OH NEVER.

Ban smoking in bars, keep guns legal.

ok...........

The amount of carbon monoxide that sneaks into cafes is far far less then a person smoking inside if it.

As for the gun thing, I wouldn't mind banning that too. I can see why the right hates you so much now, you make up lame arguments.