emeraldkity4

I know that states have different laws regarding rights on and off the job, but I knew that there are many attorneys on CC- so I thought I would throw this out.

Our state has banned smoking in public areas including restaurants, bars etc.
I don't have a problem with that except, now that even if the bar has good ventilation, smokers have to go outside, resulting in pedestrians having to run a gauntlet of groups of smokers on the sidewalk

I don't smoke- although I did many, many years ago. Before they put so many chemicals in cigarettes making it difficult to quit.

My husband however still smokes & while he has tried quitting 3 or 4 times before, and was successful for several years, he doesn't seem to be interested in quitting right now- and anything anyone says or does makes him dig in his heels.
( He does smoke outside only)

His company, like some companies across the country are requiring that their employees quit smoking, not only at breaks, but on their free time.
I know that companies can fire you for whatever reason they want, but was wondering, if that was legal.

He is pretty fed up anyway- because he works for a large company that doesn't follow OSHA standards regarding ventilation safety & attempts to get things fixed haven't been successful.
( yes he does belong to a union, but despite their power, safety doesn't seem to be a priority- yes I also find that ironic that he smokes but is worried about particulate and chemicals in the air, but he isn't addicted to the chemicals at work)

Now if I was still smoking, I would view the workplaces attempt as controlling, but also possibly as the external motivation needed to get me to quit. However, he just views it as controlling and another example of the nanny state mentality and wants to fight what he views as his upcoming firing.

So does anyone know about what employers can and can't require regarding legal behavior off the job?

SplashMom

Whirlpool Corporation in Evansville Indiana just recently suspended 39 workers because they lied on their insurance paperwork claiming they didn't use tobacco products. They were all later seen either smoking or using chewing tobacco on the Whirlpool property. Apparently, the company charges tobacco users an extra $500 in health insurance premiums each year, so these folks decided they would just lie about their use. I'm sure you can find the story if you google it. I can understand a company asking people to be honest about their tobacco use in order to take care of the extra premium, but I think it would be taking it too far to say an employee could not smoke in their own free time. Personally, no one has been happier than me to see a ban on smoking in public places as I suffer asthma and am super-sensitive to cigarette smoke. Because of the ban, I have once again been able to visit restaurants that I haven't been to in years. I am empathetic toward smokers, though, as I have an aunt who is trying very hard to kick the habit. I can't imagine that it's an easy thing to do.

razorsharp

Smoking is not a protected class. Protected classes would include race, gender, ethnicity, etc. Thus, if a large company fired you because of your race that would be illegal. But if that company is located in an employment at will state, then the company can fire you for smoking in your own home on your own time. Why? Because for at will employment, a company can fire you for any stupid reason its wants unless there is some law prohibiting firing for that reason (eg. race). For example, in an at will State a company can fire you for wearing the wrong color tie to work or to the grocery store or for no reason at all.

If you want protection from being fired for smoking in your home, that protection would come from specific state laws requiring "cause" as a basis for removal. Or that protection would come from a labor agreement.

In short, an employer can fire you for smoking in your home on your own time unless you can find some exception in state law or in a labor agreement. Usually such protections are not found in state law or labor agreements and, thus, the odds are that the smoker is toast.

scansmom

I don't know anything about the legal aspects and I think it is very unfortunate that some companies have resorted to this, but I also understand some of their motives which I suspect include rising health costs related to smoking and work productivity (I swear every time I need my assistant for something urgent, he is outside on a smoke break! And given the amount of lost productivity I have witnessed, all other things being equal, and had it been my choice, I would probably have hired a non-smoker over him).

cartera45

I'm sure it is related to insurance costs and lost time at work. Smoking is responsible for huge insurance claims and lots of lost time from work. Of course an employer wants to reduce both of those. It seems arbitrary to just choose smoking though. Obesity carries with it just as many health problems and they probably aren't requiring weigh ins and firing people accordingly. When insurance companies start charging according to weight, however, we might start seeing that.

emeraldkity4

Im sure its insurance related because some companies have stopped insuring smokers at all.
Although for him personally, he hasn't gone to the dr or dentist for at least 3 years and he works 40 hours a week plus 3 weekends a month and has had that schedule for over 20 years. ( it's cheaper to over work employees than to hire additional employees who aren't trained properly- however they are all going to retire at the same time)

They apparently have a program to help people quit drinking, but for smoking it consists of having people call you up and ask if you are smoking.
Helpful. Not so much.

MomofWildChild

I know a lot about this subject (my area of law) and I can tell you that his company's policy is unlikely to be upheld in court. It will work in some states, but not most (at this point). It is an invasion of privacy. I, personally, am in favor of not hiring smokers and am willing to take the chance with the legal issues, but I can't sell it to my HR folks yet. We have too many manufacturing facilities where this would be a real problem. There are a lot of articles about this subject.

pumpkin65

My company recently instituted increased health insurance rates for users of tobacco products. I have no doubt they would do whatever they had to do with someone who lied about their use of tobacco products when they went through open enrollment.

They are not, however, treating smokers like second class citizens. They offer smoking cessation help, and they even recently built a small ventilated structure outside of one of our buildings, affectionately known as the Butt Hutt. I think they know they would have a shortage of qualified workers if they mistreated people (it is manufacturing, but also alot of execs and middle level folks also).

Even the cigar afficionados are going 'incognito'. They were afraid to bid on a great collection of cigars at a company sponsored charity auction!

kelsmom

Several years ago, Weyco (located in MI), a health care company, fired 4 employees for refusing to take a test to determine if they had smoked. Apparently, refraining from smoking on & off the job was a condition of employment at this company. The firings were upheld in court, as far as I know. The company has joined forces with Meritain Health, so I don't know whether or not the policy is still in place. As I recall, the owner didn't want to be responsible for what he considered the extra costs of employing smokers. I don't smoke & never have, so I don't really have any skin in the game. I guess employers are allowed to do what they want within reason, and this was considered to be within reason in Michigan, at least at the time.

P.S. Many years ago, a friend was fired from EDS because a coworker saw him at a party where some people were doing drugs. No one claimed that my friend was doing drugs, just that he was there & didn't leave. Employers have been sticking their nose into private lives for a long time.

cartera45

emeraldkity - the combo of smoking and not going to the doctor is definitely risky, but I'm sure you knowing that doesn't get him closer to the doctor. The company is probably more concerned about the cost of cancer and other more serious smoking related issues than checkups and physicals. If they're that concerned about smoking, I'm surprised they don't require physicals.

emeraldkity4

I think the last time he had a physical was when he had to get some special top secret clearance but that was about 5 years ago.
I also am not so impressed with his dr- we used to go to the same Dr & he is according to a Seattle magazine popular, as he rates in their "top" drs, but he also didn't think I needed to have my older daughter checked for HIV, despite multiple transfusions before they tested the blood for it ( until she was sexually active- because ya know, I would be more concerned about her partners, than I would be concerned about her)
He also is a general practitioner and would prescribe psychotropics for H without suggesting that he go to a psychiatrist for that.
But H likes him- probably cause he only makes vague mutterings about what he is smoking.

I wouldn't hire someone that I thought would cost me more money either- however, the company is still hiring people that are active smokers even though they know they are going to change the policy in a few months. ( I also haven't heard anything about the engineers going to be forced out if they smoke- just the factory)

I also am under impression they self insure so that they could coordinate their hiring policies and insurance policies easily.

Id also think that if their insurance arm was so concerned about costs, they should look into unsafe work practices and conditions because that will probably cost them more money in the long run.

2VU0609

I remember reading something about this topic in Business Week a year or two ago. Perhaps you can search their site and come up with the article.

A.S.A.P.

No doc or dentist in 3 years? Perhaps you and your family need to do an "intervention."


This is coming from someone diagnosed with cancer this year. Had I not gone... not a happy thought.

emeraldkity4

I know, I have been working on a long letter that I am going to send to his dr. His front office staff are idiots ( really, I don't know who does the hiring but they change every month), so I know I can't just leave a message.

I resent having to behave like his mother and since I am in charge of monitoring everyone elses health ( including the recently deceased cats and the elderly dog) Im sure you understand why I don't feel responsible for him too.
I do give him articles to read, etc, because I thought that would be more helpful, also try to "lead by example" but he doesn't really pay attention

Having problems with the wording of the letter though, cause I want it to illustrate the concerns, not just sound like I am nagging.

paying3tuitions

The only way we got my dad to quit smoking was when his youngest became a teenager and asked him, respectfully, to stop so that he might live to see his own grandchildren some day. All the rational arguments didn't work, but that one did. It's worth a try, anyway. You never know what might be the "hook." His wife couldn't get him to stop, but his own son could. The heart has its own reasons.

My FIL stopped because he read that cigarettte smoking is connected somehow to impotence. He didn't even finish the cigarette he was smoking while reading the article, nor did he finish the article. Just said, "That's IT, I'm done."