The Owner gave his employees about fifteen months to quit smoking. Then they will have to take a nicotine test to prove that they quit. Three employees failed and were fired.
2006-10-30 11:18:20 · 16 answers · asked by Shai 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Possibly for insurance reasons or just to be an ***. Non smokers get lower insurance premiums, generally have less health problems (long term), and don't stink up the place lol.
I'm a smoker, just taking a guess. It's a good incentive to stop smoking, but I don't believe my boss should be the one to decide that for me. What's next? "Hey Bill, you're lookin' a little pudgy. I give you 4 months to lose 10lbs or your fired."
2006-10-30 11:22:16 · answer #1 · answered by E B 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's absolutely about health insurance rates and job performance. Smokers have high health insurance costs for the company, and if someone is distracted because they need to smoke, then they're probably not doing their job as good as the could be. The Pella Window Corporation has a policy just like this that prohibits employees from being smokers, and gives urine tests to see if the person has been smoking. I completely support policies like this. People don't need to smoke, and anything that lessons the number of smokers in the world is a good thing.
2006-11-05 15:12:33 · answer #2 · answered by DustInCarroll 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
smokers have higher incidences of health issues, so health insurance rates could be a driving force, but in reality, how is that any different from drug or alcohol testing? Smoking and being hooked on nicotine aren't much different from the guy that drinks a 12 pack every night after work or snorts something. Yeah, the tolerance builds, but the work performance is still afftected. Many smokers "shake", have foul odor from their clothes and breath, and cough...not a pleasant customer relations approach.
2006-10-30 11:25:48 · answer #3 · answered by getting2old2quick 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because smokers get sick more often so are absent from the job more often. And because they get sick more often the owner has to pay more for worker health insurance.
I do have a funny story to tell about not smoiking at work. When I worked for a major department store my station was right by an entrance door.
The store had a no smoking policy, but the smokers gather near the entrances to the store when they smoked, the store manager being one of them.
Every so often, an offended woman coming thru the cloud of smoke would ask me about talking to the manager about the problem. I had to tell them "See the tallest guy out there, he's the manager."
2006-10-30 11:21:41 · answer #4 · answered by the shadow knows 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The answer about health insurance was correct, but I'm curious why if so many people think such an employer is wrong that they accept this kind of behavior from their government.
Many cities outlaw smoking and are trying to tax it out of private homes, and they have banned other substances. Why the outrage over employers and cigarettes?
It's not like it's a free country or anything, you know.
2006-10-30 11:33:48 · answer #5 · answered by open4one 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i in my opinion believe that the industry can look after this one. If an proprietor of a dive bar facilitates smoking interior, people who do no longer choose to be around smoking won't take place. If all too many can't take care of the actuality that smoking is going on, the placement might pass under and that they are going to close down. If human beings love the actuality which you will smoke in there, greater might take place and employer might strengthen. maximum employer vendors are not stupid sufficient to enable their place pass out of commercial company over smoking. i can't think of of a justification myself, yet i'm no longer a liberal and don't think of that agencies must be taxed, nor do i think of that the government ought to tell them a thank you to function. it quite is easy to get the persons in the back of this as hating human beings who smoke is the cool element to do in maximum factors. the place I stay, rarely anybody smokes however the meth heads. I end through fact of ways badly human beings take care of you.
2016-12-28 08:30:18 · answer #6 · answered by schwager 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
sounds like an abuse of power -- has gotta be a case of unfair dismissal. Could insist on all the woman dying there hair blonde. ban alcohol consumption at any time. the list is endless.
-- if the employees' partner was a heavy smoker could the passive effect of this effect the result of a nicotine test...... could they ban the partner from smoking ............
i don't smoke, but i dont want to live in a soceity which allows no personal freedoms or choices at all.
2006-10-30 11:26:48 · answer #7 · answered by bob 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
First off its non of the owners business what you do on your own time.I do know that they can request you not smoke in side the building,and if they are using the company truck they can request that you not smoke in there vehicles...but hey are going a lot over board to take test and try to run your own personal business on your own time...I would like to ask you something,Why in the world would anyone agree to work for a boss like that?
2006-10-30 14:47:27 · answer #8 · answered by slickcut 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
This is illegal. Smoking is a legal activity. However, if the employee had a job in which smoking would greatly increase his chances for injury or death, then the employer would have the responsibility to protect them. Otherwise, it would be negligence.
2006-10-30 11:33:01 · answer #9 · answered by Christopher 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The owner of a business might do this to decrease his group health insurance rates/premiums.
2006-10-30 11:22:48 · answer #10 · answered by enchanted alchemist 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋