The segment should start in about 5 min E.T.

[ 01 March 2005: Message edited by: James ]

Moreover, I don't understand why alcohol addiction would be covered under the human rights act and not tobacco addiction; tobacco, if I recall, is the most addictive substance there is.

The whole thing strikes me as a gross human rights violation and an example of untrammelled corporate rule.

quote:

---

"Anyone concerned about limiting employers' rights to specify terms of employment should know that federal law protects people with conditions like obesity, alcoholism and AIDS. But there's no right to indulge in tobacco," the news release said.

---

How interesting. Does anyone know whether that is true of U.S. law?

[ 01 March 2005: Message edited by: James ]

Anyway, he said what many/most (?) of us would agree with politically, although I felt there was something inconclusive about his arguments. He described the current positions of the courts in Canada, which would answer the questions about health costs by balancing those against the weight given by our courts to human-rights considerations, like privacy, equality, and dignity. He also remarked that the American employer was assuming the much greater weight given rights of property (apparently) in Michigan.

One of the employees fired in Michigan talked about legislation now being prepared by a state [senator?] that would stop this kind of discrimination. She also mocked the employer's repeated claim that she had "made a choice." ("They're all adults; they chose smoking over their jobs.") She said, "Nonsense. I was fired."

[ 01 March 2005: Message edited by: skdadl ]

In reply to your question:

Heat Rises Over 'No Smokers Hired' Policy

quote:

---

According to Houston and several other employment attorneys, there have been no recent legal challenges to the no-smoking policies. Houston cited one 1987 case, a 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that upheld an employer's right to ban off-duty smoking.

In that case, a firefighter trainee sued the Oklahoma City Fire Department and city over a rule that prohibited smoking, on and off duty, for one year. The court found that the no-smoking rule had a legitimate purpose in promoting health and safety and did not violate due process. Grusendorf v. City of Oklahoma City, 816 F.2d 539 (10th Cir. 1987).

In the recent Michigan case, four Weyco employees have quit their jobs after refusing to take a tobacco test, according to Houston. He said the company announced the policy 15 months ago to its 200-plus employees, giving smokers more than a year's time to kick the habit before the Jan. 1 testing day. All employees have passed the test, Houston added.

But some lawyers remain skeptical about the new policy.

"My initial reaction was questioning whether that would be something that would pass muster in the courts, whether it would survive under the discrimination laws," said Lori Shapiro, general counsel and trainer for Employment Learning Innovations in Atlanta, a company that provides workplace legal training to help change employee behavior.

Shapiro, a former litigator in employment discrimination cases, said before the recent Michigan policy, she had never heard of a corporate ban on all smoking.

"It's a new one to me,"Shapiro said. "I'll be very curious to see if it does survive ... .I think it would be difficult to make an argument that someone's smoking off the job is influencing their performance on the job."

---

1) On-Site job performance

2) Whether the behaviour undermines the employer in some way.

For example re: # 2: If you work for Coca Cola, you could not also do an ad for Pepsi Cola in your spare time, claiming it's the best. etc.

In this case, I believe the employer is involved in health care in some manner. So the idea is that
a smoking employee severely undermines the "health" image of the company.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
I remember being in Mexico and speaking with a bunch of health bureaucrats from some Ministry or other. They were all smoking. It made me doubt their commitment to public health overall.

---

Presumably, those who suffer from a disease are doing everything they can to defeat it; in the Mexican case, no one claimed to be struggling unsuccessfully with an addiction.

quote:

---

Presumably, those who suffer from a disease are doing everything they can to defeat it;

---

Can you imagine telling someone with terminal cancer that you can cure them, but that they might feel some irritability, and they might crave something they can't have?

Can you imagine telling a quariplegic that they can run, and feel a hug, and have sex again, but they might lose their appetite for a while and have some restless sleep?

I'm betting they'd be on it so fast it would make your head spin.

[ 01 March 2005: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]

And here I thought James must have been vying for the half-awake typo king awards when he wrote that title.

What got me was he did it all on company time. I figure he wasted about a week each year standing outside and smoking.

I finally left after my new girlfriend, at the time, thought I was a smoker because I would bring home the guys B.O. by the end of the day.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Contrarian:
Focus on the Flabily; hold your nose and say it.

---

quote:

---

I would think that because smoking is not identical to being infected with a disease.
Presumably, those who suffer from a disease are doing everything they can to defeat it; in the Mexican case, no one claimed to be struggling unsuccessfully with an addiction.

Many people actually can stop smoking.

---

In Canada alone, there are 6.5 million former smokers. See it here.

As addictions go, it is not easy to quit, but it does not require superhuman powers either.

Edited to fix link that did not work.

[ 01 March 2005: Message edited by: Bernard W ]

quote:

---

Focus on the Flabily; hold your nose and say it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
Presumably, those who suffer from a disease are doing everything they can to defeat it; in the Mexican case, no one claimed to be struggling unsuccessfully with an addiction.

Many people actually can stop smoking.

---

I see your point. However...I don't think there's a person alive who doesn't do SOMETHING unhealthy, or have SOME kind of unhealthy habit, whether it's eating stuff that's bad for you on occasion, smoking, etc. Unless you're willing to label almost everyone "uncommitted to public health" until they become perfect and completely cure themselves of all bad and unhealthy habits, then I think you have to accept the fact that imperfect people are going to do self-destructive things AND, paradoxically, still care about public health care.

P.S. I don't really think of addictions as "diseases" either. But many people do.

[ 01 March 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]

But smoking is a legal activity. So is drinking but show up for work repeatedly drunk and/or smelling of alcohol and you'll be sacked. But what if you're just observed having a social drink after hours?

quote:

---

Originally posted by scooter:
I like the idea of "firing" the smokers. I had one job where the guy next to my cubicle went out for a smoke break every couple of hours. The guy stunk up the place something horrid.

What got me was he did it all on company time. I figure he wasted about a week each year standing outside and smoking.

I finally left after my new girlfriend, at the time, thought I was a smoker because I would bring home the guys B.O. by the end of the day.

Yeech!

---

That is not what this is about.

This is about firing someone for something they do on their own time. I didn't really like it much when my co-workers would get twice as many breaks as I did because I don't smoke, but saving the company some money in wages is not what this guy, testing for traces of nicotine, is looking to do.

quote:

---

Unless you're willing to label almost everyone "uncommitted to public health" until they become perfect and completely cure themselves of all bad and unhealthy habits, then I think you have to accept the fact that imperfect people are going to do self-destructive things AND, paradoxically, still care about public health care.

---

U.S. common law has wholeheartedly embraced the "employment at will" paradigm, which means, essentiaaly, "i like ya so long as I like ya; when I don't no more, have a nice life".

Canadian employment law has devekoped along a different path; that of contract, and the "reading-in" of generally understood terms. Among those implied terms are "fair evaluation", "progressivive discipline", and "reasoable notice"

[ 01 March 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]