Smoking Nazis - GoFuckYourself.com

warlock5 · 01-25-2005, 11:25 AM

LANSING, Mich. -- Four employees of a health care company have been fired for refusing to take a test to determine whether they smoke cigarettes.

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.

Company founder Howard Weyers has said the anti-smoking rule was designed to shield the firm from high health care costs. "I don't want to pay for the results of smoking," he said.

The rule led one employee to quit before the policy was adopted. Four others were fired when they balked at the smoking test.

http://www.wral.com/news/4126577/detail.html

I'm all for employer rights choosing who they hire and fire, but what the fuck?

What if I smoked cigars? Thats hardly a health risk; it could be argued that its healthy.

Would this employer get away telling overweight people to lose weight or else they'd be fired -- because they are a health risk?

Fletch XXX · 01-25-2005, 11:26 AM

only fools think people are really free.

hova · 01-25-2005, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

only fools think people are really free.

too bad 90% of the worlds population consists of fools

Ian · 01-25-2005, 12:05 PM

Looks like a very winnable law suit to me.

pradaboy · 01-25-2005, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian

Looks like a very winnable law suit to me.

Not if the employees agreed to the new policy

01-25-2005, 11:25 AM	#1
warlock5 Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Uranus Posts: 2,808	Smoking Nazis LANSING, Mich. -- Four employees of a health care company have been fired for refusing to take a test to determine whether they smoke cigarettes. 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. Company founder Howard Weyers has said the anti-smoking rule was designed to shield the firm from high health care costs. "I don't want to pay for the results of smoking," he said. The rule led one employee to quit before the policy was adopted. Four others were fired when they balked at the smoking test. http://www.wral.com/news/4126577/detail.html I'm all for employer rights choosing who they hire and fire, but what the fuck? What if I smoked cigars? Thats hardly a health risk; it could be argued that its healthy. Would this employer get away telling overweight people to lose weight or else they'd be fired -- because they are a health risk?

01-25-2005, 11:26 AM	#2
Fletch XXX GFY HALL OF FAME DAMMIT!!! Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: that 504 Posts: 60,840	only fools think people are really free. __________________ Want an Android App for your tube, membership, or free site? Need banners or promo material? Hit us up (ICQ Fletch: 148841377) or email me fletchxxx at gmail.com - recent work - About me

01-25-2005, 12:05 PM	#4
Ian Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 1,259	Looks like a very winnable law suit to me.