|
...and Jayx1 thought Toronto smoking laws are harsh... (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Orko |
and as for people being fired for smoking! thats whack!!!!
sure cancle their health benefits, they are more than entitled to, cause it does drive up their costs(insurance company)
but as for their job? thats e. i know the company can turn around and cite some study that says non-smokers are more productive(if one exists), but thats just dumb. the difference would be so neglagible. It would be smarter to ban coffee, because people get so worked up because of it.
let people enjoy their drugs on their own time! a job should not be able to determine how you spend your free time, because its free!!!
if they start paying you 24hrs/day, then they can complain about smoking. |
|
|
| Skipper |
| Sorry, didn't see your post Aaron! |
|
|
| starsearcher |
| quote: | Quit Smoking or Quit Your Job, U.S. Company Says
1 hour, 9 minutes ago
Health - Reuters
By Andrew Stern
CHICAGO (Reuters) - The owner of a Michigan company who forced his employees to either quit smoking or quit their jobs said on Wednesday he also wants to tell fat workers to lose weight or else.
A ban on tobacco use -- whether at home or at the workplace -- led four employees to quit their jobs last week at Okemos, Michigan-based Weyco Inc., which handles insurance claims.
The workers refused to take a mandatory urine test demanded of Weyco's 200 employees by founder and sole owner Howard Weyers, a demand that he said was perfectly legal.
"If you don't want to take the test, you can leave," Weyers told Reuters. "I'm not controlling their lives; they have a choice whether they want to work here."
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.
The 71-year-old Weyers, who said he has never smoked and pronounced himself in good shape thanks to daily runs, said employees' health as well as saving money on the company's own insurance claims led him to first bar smokers from being hired in 2003.
Last year, he banned smoking during office hours, then demanded smokers pay a monthly $50 "assessment," and finally instituted mandatory testing.
Twenty workers quit the habit.
Weyers tells clients to quit whining about health care costs and to "set some expectations; demand some things."
Job placement specialist John Challenger said Weyco's moves could set a precedent for larger companies -- if it survives potential legal challenges.
"Certainly it raises an interesting boundary issue: rising health care costs and society's aversion to smoking versus privacy and freedom rights of an individual," Challenger said.
So far no legal challenges have been made to Weyco's policies.
|
|
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orko
i do...and dont agree with this.
a) there is a tone of litter due to butts...but yes the same could be said for packaged foods...but they were saying that the butts account for 4x more garbage than other litter.
b) now you cant smoke outside...that is going pretty far with the law, and it doest start infringing on your rights...i thought the outside was safe. if you wanna smoke, smoke outside thats fine.
i never thought smoking was a problem outside in a park, im sure many people enjoy a nice walk and a smoke, and if they want to..go right ahead.
but please people dispose of your butts somewhere else! thats the only problem i have with ciggs outside. |
people will use the same arguement for banning smoking outdoors as they do indoors. "well what if a waft of smoke blows in my face?"
As for tobbaco butts? THATS WEAK! As others have mentioned if they do this they might as well ban anything that comes in a package from being with you outdoors. (although im sure this may happen someday too at the rate we are going).
Hey, if you all want to live in Singapore then move there. But Canada is supposed to be about freedom |
|
|
| j_spot |
| its already been determined that what you do on personal time is not just personal. A single drink on your lunch hour is reason for dismissal. Having those chemicals in your body while on the job, even if they arent doing anything (say 2 weeks after smoking up) is reason for dismissal. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by j_spot
its already been determined that what you do on personal time is not just personal. A single drink on your lunch hour is reason for dismissal. Having those chemicals in your body while on the job, even if they arent doing anything (say 2 weeks after smoking up) is reason for dismissal. |
Sadly most people seem not to care when it comes to handing over your freedoms.
Most will do so on a silver platter "for the greater good" not realizing exactly what it is they are doing to themselves and to the rest of society. |
|
|
| Skipper |
| I do think the smokers who got fired were treated unfairly. |
|
|
| Cal |
| Guess its the best they can do considering enforcing littering laws is almost impossible. |
|
|
| SurrJRS |
| quote: | Originally posted by j_spot
their argument is one against littering, not smoking.
might as well ban eating packaged food in the park too.
|
People tend to put garbage in the trashcan, but very few would do the same for their butts. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cal
Guess its the best they can do considering enforcing littering laws is almost impossible. |
So you support this? |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Form&Funktion
I'm sure some people have also heard of the company in Michigan who is subjecting all employees to tests to prove they don't smoke. If they fail they will have their benefits revoked or be fired.....and it's legal according to state law.
The company's reason for the crack-down is to lower health benefit costs.
I'm against smoking and approve the laws applied here in Toronto but indeed, this is an example of taking it too far! |
Not that far fetched however.
My father is an Ironworker and in his union they are now subjected to manditory drug testing every 6(?) months.
I'm not so sure if it's strictly from a benefits POV from the union but it does go to show that companies are no longer willing to support or foot the bill for others' [EDIT: others' being their own employees) decisions outside the company's time. |
|
|
| Cal |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
So you support this? |
It looks like a lesser of two evils situation.
Littering laws are impossible to enforce because you actually have to be spotted littering by a cop to get a ticket. So to make the law work you either have to fill the parks with cops or place cameras everywhere, which I think would suck even more.
You could always leave things as it is, but then theres no progress, which is the second preferable outcome in my opinion.
You could also out the littering law, period, but that's going backwards.
Making smoking illigal in parks, well, while I don't like how five million new laws every year complicate our existance, I think getting rid of people smoking is a worthy enough cause to bear a few new laws. |
|
|
|
|
