ATS: Michigan Company Dictates Smoking Outside of Workplace

I know of at least one company here in the US that offers lower insurance premiums to the employees who do not smoke and/or quit. I really think this is more effective way of dealing with the problem.

I can't believe that an employer can have the right to screen employees for something that is not illegal, and that they use during their own time. What's next?

First companies use "safety" to judge all potential and sometimes current random employees as GUILTY before INNOCENT by making them pee in a cup to catch less than 3% of employees that could be on illegal drugs...

now they are gonna fire ones or just bar you from earning a living for smoking a legal product in your own home and time!?!?

Absolutly over the line!
Find out where you can mail/email them nasty letters saying "we will not do business with you because you persecute and subjigate your employees"

Its not bad enough that they rule most of your day, now companies DARE to try and invade your private space and time

We wouldnt put up with crap from the government, why should we let corporations jerk us like this?

Unless you have to not have smoke particles on you in order to make micro-chips or do surgery or a legitimate issue such as these,
there is NO reason to abuse your employees in this fashion.

statistics are generated to suit the needs of whoever pays the most to generate them. Remember when eggs were bad for you, then the farmers were losing millions, then mysteriously, the ACS said, "umm, just kidding-eggs are good for you now!" I am not saying that smoking is good for you, I am not saying that it isnt bad for you, but most of the time cancer is genetic, or caused in a "cocktail" of circumstances. For instance, people that smoke, but eat healthy, non-processed foods and exercise regularly, have less incidence than people that eat fatty processed foods and live in big cities, that dont smoke. Check smoking/cancer stats worldwide and see the dramatic differences in what they report.
I have no problem not smoking in public places, where it may offend non-smokers, but sometimes non-smokers are rediculous! They will warm their cars up in the garage, fuming up their entire house with exhaust, yet gripe about smelling the slightest hint of cigarette smoke, when walking past a smoking area. I think non-smokers feel empowered by the national slamming of smokers. The plant where I work, we cant smoke in the building, but they will run trucks in the building right next to you, which is several times more dangerous than second hand smoke. You non-smokers that beg to differ on that can go put your face next to your tail pipe, while I suck down a couple of cigs- tell me what you think after I have finished my smokes!
The only non-smokers I feel for, are the ones that dont contribute to any pollution in any way-
I have to hand it to those of you that never smoked, it is ignorant to ever start, some of us didnt have the same kind of influences you did, - but I also have to say it is ignorant of you to judge a smoker until you know how hard it is to quit-especially when it is legal. I want to quit because of the raping I get from Ms Granholm (my gov.), but I have tried many ways and I just havent been successful.
Back to my point though, it is not smoking alone that CAUSES cancer, it is a number of factors, but because most people today are a product of what they see on TV - they are easily brainwashed by the highest bidder. They say smoking CAUSES cancer, which misleads the fact that it is still just a contributor. It contributes to heart disease, and many other things too, but so do Big Mac's. So does chlorine in your drinking water, and the air you breathe, and the soaps you use, and the chemicals we use for house cleaning, and the radon that comes from the ground, and petroleum products, and glues, and make-up, and TV's, and computer monitors, and steroids pumped into cattle to make them meatier (which is transferred to us when we eat it-contributing to obesity, and food addiction), and sanitary items for the ladies, and birth control,and the tanning beds, the sun,the paint on the walls, the insulation in the attic, oh yea, and if you have a gas problem, methane emitted from our own natural bodies CAN be deadly (I know some people I would stay away from anyways) OK I am just rambling now- think I will close and have a smoke!

The employees should do a little investigating into the stuff that they are playing with at work...and take a serious look at the risk of cigarettes also. I mean, look at the medical research that is available, check out epa, osha, ect, and well, see if anything that they are expected to work with could be considered as dangerous as the cigarettes. Then bring these dangers to the attention of their employers with demands that they clean up their act. This wouldn't work for all occupations, but it would for many, and if this company produces drugs, well, it propably would here. After all, they are so concerned that we are breething clean air, aren't they?
Or is it just that they are finding themselves having to pay a little more than they like for ALL their employees healthcare and now feel that they own you. So, now, hey, they can kill you, but you can't kill yourself.....
ummmm......socialism at it's finest!!

anybody visited their website yet??

WEYCO, INC is a service company specializing in Employee Benefit Plans and Benefit Management. WEYCO, INC is also an agent for Insured Plans such as Life, Long Term Disability, Medical, Dental, Vision, and Flexible Spending Accounts.

WEYCO, INC believes in having a proactive plan for promoting healthy lifestyles for employees. Healthy employees are more productive and, long term, the healthcare costs can be lessened.

right from the frontpage...



[edit on 26-1-2005 by quango]

Well, I guess Weyco is putting their money where their mouth is. How can they ask their customers to do something if their employees don't??
So, like the semiconductor company, maybe this is a necessity.

I really would like to see something proactive done about the obesity problem. This is a potential much bigger drain on health insurance providers: diabetes, heart problems, and many other weight related health risks.

@relentlessThat'll be the day when my insurer, Blue Cross, offers me a discount for not drinking/smoking or being obese! *scoffs*

Next on the firing line: overweight workers.


"We have to work on eating habits and getting people to exercise. But if you're obese, you're (legally) protected," Weyers said.


He has brought in an eating disorder therapist to speak to workers, provided eating coaches, created a point system for employees to earn health-related $100 bonuses and plans to offer $45 vouchers for health club memberships
Next the Overweight

This company takes the cake....
lable people and try some more discrimination why dont they?
geesh
sell your stock in this company before the backlash gets them....
because this company SUCKS!
I say BOYCOTT them.
the road to hell is paved with crap agendas like this anything for a buck company is pushing.
Soon your company will OWN you too.

Seems Ohio's governor is learning something from Michigan.. he's raising taxes another .50cents to match Michigans..]

Hell, look at New York.. its almost 8$ a pack there..

Taxing the hell out of citizen addicted to a drug they manufactured.. brilliant.



You are lucky its nearly £ 5.00 pounds a pack of 20 cigs in the UK and our fuel (gasoline ) is nearly £ 4.50 a gallon, We know all about big taxes in the UK.

The concern about this extending beyond smoking is legitimate. The insurance concern is also legitimate. Nobody wants to, and currently nobody has to, be responsible for the rising cost of health care.

I've believed for quite a while that vital social infrastructure is supposed to be socialized in accordance with the government's purpose of promoting the general welfare, as it is put in the preamble to our constitution. Our educational, medical, emergency, transportation, water, electrical, communication, and other infrastructures should not be managed for profit. I suppose I'm going a tad off topic though.

The bottom line for the immediate question is that we have to press responsibility for individually created risks without providing grounds for discrimination.
I can see allowing a certain level of rate increase for people who choose to smoke and drink- i'd either quit drinking or learn to live with the cost. I don't think we can expect others to pay for the habits we choose, but I also don't think we should lose our livelihoods just because the boss wants to pinch pennies.

Afterall, where would it stop if we gave them carte-blanche for this sort of cheepskate hiring? What happens when racial statistics lead to the black-booking of ethnic groups from the best jobs?

Well, let them have their laws..I'll be breaking them. If I want to smoke, i
m going to smoke. This is ridiculous to say the least.

These are the same people who flip open a beer the minute they get home from work.....

If smoking is outlawed then i want booze outlawed.

I guess basements all across the US would be used for yet another habit, huh??