# General Discussion > Opinions >  You smoke in your private time?=fired!

## Miss_apollo7

What do you think about companies banning smoking for the employees, even in their private time? Do you encourage this policy?

More companies are taking action against employees who smoke off-duty, and, in an extreme trend that some call troubling, some are now firing or banning the hiring of workers who light up even on their own time.
The outright bans raise new questions about how far companies can go in regulating workers' behavior when they are off the clock. The crackdown is coming in part as a way to curb soaring health care costs, but critics say companies are violating workers' privacy rights. The zero-tolerance policies are coming as more companies adopt smoke-free workplaces.

• Weyco, a medical benefits provider based in Okemos, Mich., this year banned employees from smoking on their own time. Employees must submit to random tests that detect if someone has smoked. They must also agree to searches of briefcases, purses or other belongings if company officials suspect tobacco or other banned substances have been brought on-site. Those who smoke may be suspended or fired.

About 20 employees have quit smoking under the policy, and a handful were fired after they opted out of the testing. "The main goal is to elevate the health status of our employees," says Gary Climes, chief financial officer. 

• At Investors Property Management in Seattle, smokers are not hired. Employees who smoked before the ban was passed about two years ago are not fired; however, they can't get medical insurance through the company.

• Alaska Airlines has a no-smoking policy for employees, and new hires must submit to a urine test to prove they're tobacco-free.

"The debate has gone from where they can smoke to whether they can smoke," says Marshall Tanick, a Minneapolis-based employment lawyer.

Such bans are not legal everywhere: More than 20 states have passed laws that bar companies from discriminating against workers for lifestyle decisions.

There are other ways that companies are taking action against off-duty smoking, such as raising health care premiums for smokers. 

Employers say it's about creating a healthy workforce. But it's also a bottom-line issue: Tobacco causes more than 440,000 deaths annually and results in more than $75 billion in direct medical costs a year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

Some smokers' rights groups are vowing legal action.

"These matters will be decided in the courts," says Redmond, Wash.-based Norman Kjono, with Forces, a smokers' rights group. "You're creating a class of unemployable citizens. It won't stand."

And legal experts fear companies will try to control other aspects of employees' off-duty lifestyle, a trend that is already happening. Some companies are firing, suspending or charging higher insurance premiums to workers who are overweight, have high cholesterol or participate in risky activities. 

This article can be found at: http://www.usatoday.com

----------


## Tim33

I dont smoke so it does not affect me however if my work told me what i can and cannot do in my own Free Personal time they can really go and ......... Insert rude phrase

I would just simply quit, though im sure legal action could be taken on this surely.

Would it not cause less work to be done and higher stress levels + sick pay for all those extra hours of stress illness when people are having to quit smoking.

When im not happy with my job i simply dont work so i dont see how they will benifit from this.

----------


## RockLee

Smoking does not relieve stress...that's what people invent in their own little qball...it's all in the mind...smoking is nothing more than a nasty habit wich has to get extinct soon  :Okashii:

----------


## misa.j

> And legal experts fear companies will try to control other aspects of employees' off-duty lifestyle, a trend that is already happening. Some companies are firing, suspending or charging higher insurance premiums to workers who are overweight, have high cholesterol or participate in risky activities.


I wouldn't want to work for a company that would try to regulate what I do on my own time, and the trend seems a bit extreme. I think it is a good thing to encourage employees to quit smoking, but I wonder if those companies are providing the employees who are smokers enough options before termination. 
How do they determine which employees are overweight, have high cholesterol or participate in risky activities to charge higher premiums?

----------


## Sensuikan San

> What do you think about companies banning smoking for the employees, even in their private time? Do you encourage this policy?
> 
> More companies are taking action against employees who smoke off-duty, and, in an extreme trend that some call troubling, some are now firing or banning the hiring of workers who light up even on their own time.
> The outright bans raise new questions about how far companies can go in regulating workers' behavior when they are off the clock. The crackdown is coming in part as a way to curb soaring health care costs, but critics say companies are violating workers' privacy rights. The zero-tolerance policies are coming as more companies adopt smoke-free workplaces.
> 
> • Weyco, a medical benefits provider based in Okemos, Mich., this year banned employees from smoking on their own time. Employees must submit to random tests that detect if someone has smoked. They must also agree to searches of briefcases, purses or other belongings if company officials suspect tobacco or other banned substances have been brought on-site. Those who smoke may be suspended or fired.
> 
> About 20 employees have quit smoking under the policy, and a handful were fired after they opted out of the testing. "The main goal is to elevate the health status of our employees," says Gary Climes, chief financial officer. 
> 
> ...



Sorry to quote the entire post ... but I feel that it's fitting ... 

Who runs these companies? _The bloody SS ?_

With regard to the smoking issue .... I never cease to be amazed at the zeal with which some non-smokers,and all _anti_ -smokers pursue it ! (Regardless of wether or not _they_ take drugs, molest children, have sex with small animals or rubber chickens, drive with an intent to kill, indulge in covert criminal pursuits or are alchaholic, chocaholic, workaholic, engaged in fraudulent practice or beat their wives !)

This is political correctness being carried to an extreme that can only verge on fascism.

When they've finished with smokers ...

_Who's next ... ?_

Regards,

W

----------


## Jungle Boy

It's ridiculous..companies don't like hung over workers..it's unhealty and will make them unproductive..the should ban drinking in your free time too...companies don't like fat employees..they work slower and are less healthy..they should make them diet or else they will be fired...companies dont' like tired employees...they are unalert and do a sloppy job..everyone should be made to go to be exactly at 11 to get a good nights sleep...where does it end?

----------


## Kara_Nari

Firstly... im a smoker, but I think that in some circumstances that employers should have the right to ban smoking... but not altogether. It does give a bad image, and fair enough if the employees are driving in company cars etc... they should have a little more respect for their company and refrain from doing it during business time (other than breaks, or when they are not being paid to represent the company). When it comes down to employees not wearing distinguishing company logo's etc... then its not going to cause any problems surely? When I was hairdressing I never smoked before or during work, it smells bad, and would you want to go to a dentist or doctor who has stinky smokers breath?
Anyway there are some companies in NZ worse than that! They dont even allow their employees to leave the premises during their break time. But to be fired for a bad habit such as smoking... is very weird. Overall I do think that employers should be allowed to stipulate when and where employees can smoke, but only during working hours. To force someone to go cold turkey is rough though, I hope that they are going to help their employees to give up by offering to pay for patches or heavily subsidise in a 'quit smoking' scheme. I worked for a large company that offered to pay for the nicotine patches... not sure how many people actually took them up on the offer, but it was nice of them to offer. Also now in NZ you are not allowed to smoke in any public building including carpark buildings, covered alleyways, staff lunch rooms (even if there was a seperate smoking room) and bars etc. Not too many problems with that until it rains... but anyway I dont need to worry anymore, you can smoke anywhere in korea

----------


## Sensuikan San

> Firstly... im a smoker, but I think that in some circumstances that employers should have the right to ban smoking... but not altogether. It does give a bad image, and fair enough if the employees are driving in company cars etc... they should have a little more respect for their company and refrain from doing it during business time (other than breaks, or when they are not being paid to represent the company). When it comes down to employees not wearing distinguishing company logo's etc... then its not going to cause any problems surely? When I was hairdressing I never smoked before or during work, it smells bad, and would you want to go to a dentist or doctor who has stinky smokers breath?


Absolutely - and I quite agree.

It may be pretty obvious that I'm a smoker - but I do not by any means endorse it - just like Kara Nari. But by no means do any of us have two heads or hooves; it's _legal_, and there are far worse vices that should be addressed first. A little courtesey is called for on both sides 'tis all... 



> .....Also now in NZ you are not allowed to smoke in any public building including carpark buildings, covered alleyways, staff lunch rooms (even if there was a seperate smoking room) and bars etc.....


Bureaucrats can sometimes go a little far ....

I recall that in the 1970's, it was in Oregon (I believe) that they found a statute on their books that declared something to the effect that it was illegal for consenting adults to have sex in a public _or a private_  place !!!

(The intent was to stop folks steaming up the windows in discreetly parked cars....!)

Married couples of all ages, everywhere .... were breaking the law - at home ! ....in bed ! It was repealed .....  :Smiling:  

Regards,

W

----------


## Kionon

I am not a smoker. Allergic to tobacco, but I think this is ridiculous, and I'm a great customer of Alaska Airlines. I've spent thousands with them, and I think I'm going to give them a call and express my displeasure. I think that smokers have the right to smoke as long as they don't get near me when they do it. If it's their private time, at home, a company is infringing upon their rights, and it shouldn't be allowed.

----------


## Mycernius

I'm not a smoker, but to ban or fire employees because of what they do outside company time is wrong, if not illegal. If your company runs a no smoking at work fair enough. I have visited enough companies that have an area set aside for them or they have to leave company premises to smoke. You usually see them standing outside the gates or offices smoking, but they do not ban them from smoking in their own time.
Where does it end? Do you ban people who drink at weekends from working? After all alcohol is a bigger killer than tabacco. Same with eating the wrong type of food. Health nazis seem to be trying to run our lives. The sad thing is that half the things they say are bad for you, research a couple of years later say you do need. Red wine is a good example, a glass a day is said to be good for you.
Mind you I have never heard of this happening in Europe. If some tried it it could be considered an infringement of the human rights act. The US is sounding less like the 'land of the free' more the 'land of the controlled'  :Okashii:

----------


## Miss_apollo7

> The US is sounding less like the 'land of the free' more the 'land of the controlled'


True, however, I think this trend will spread outside the US borders soon, as people can no longer smoke freely as before in Europe. In e.g. Ireland it is banned to smoke in pubs.

I am not a smoker, so I wouldn't mind banning smoking in public places, however, I do think it is wrong to ban people from smoking if they chose to smoke at home......
well, I think smokers will become extinct in the future.............

----------


## Mycernius

While it is true that various European countries have banned smoking in pubs, even looking into doing it in the UK, actually sacking people because they smoke in their private time will not happen in the EU. This is because of the European Human Rights Act. If anyone tries to bring in the same sort of measures bought in the US they will find themselve in the European courts in violation of the Act. I suppose their are some good things about the EU and protecting peoples rights is one of them.

----------


## digicross

Private time at company's property? Or private time at one's own property?

Just ask yourself, do you want a person to do something you don't want him/her to do at your own property?

Or maybe do you want to hire a person who do things that you don't want him/her to do, whether that it's own his/her own time and his/her own property or not?



It should be noted people become sick when they're stressed.

And also that many stressed people choose to smoke because they think that they relieve it because they think they can relieve by smoking or at least do it like many people bite their own nails and so on.

Of course, people who're not stressed choose to smoke not because they're stressed, but because they choose to.

Now imagine if stressed people who are smoke, bite their own nails, and so on not to do so, will these make their more stressed? Well... That depends on the people themself. Will it make them stressed? Well... That depends on the people themself.


Are companies benefiting from the no-smoking employee law? Unlikely. Why did they do that? well... Maybe it's ordered by their superior?



As for who run these sort of companies that banned their employees from smoking.

Nope, not the S.S., the same people who used to run the S.S., and also the same people who continually harass the native North Americans (who loves to smoke, and usually use smoking to test if their allies are what they really claimed to be).

----------

