Tell the Boss to MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS

Weyco is starting to hear more on this.

In response to public outcry over Weyco's zero-tolerance smoking policy, company president Howard Weyers issued an unusually direct official statement asserting that his employees families and co-workers will be thankful to the company for keeping their workers from going to an early grave.

The statement, along with a supplementary background sheet, was issued on the company's Web site Jan. 25.

The statement, "Why Weyco is Serious About Smoking," is careful to frame the issue in terms of employee choice rather than company action. While trying to be sensitive to smokers personal predicament, it states, we're also saying, ?You can choose to smoke after Jan. 1, but if so, you'll need to find other employment.

The accompanying background sheet takes the same tack. "Many [employees] have thanked us for initiating the program," it reads. Only three have opted-out [sic] of the program and decided to seek employment elsewhere."

I can understand how some would thank you, but they fired four woman who refused.

State Sen. Virg Bernero, D-Lansing, said Monday that he plans to introduce a bill in coming weeks that would ban Michigan employers from firing or refusing to hire workers for legal activities they enjoy on their own time that don't impinge on their work. He says it's wrong that four women lost their jobs at Okemos-based Weyco Inc. because they didn't quit smoking by Jan. 1. (article) [emphasis mine]

In the title article they point to statistics about the costs of time lost due to smoking. Being that this is totally out of context, where are the statistics about losses due to skiing, or employees having children? I'm betting if someone did a study on children related losses (sickness of child, sickness of worker, spread of sickness to coworkers, snow days, teacher's workshop days off, etc.) this company would only hire singles. (Yes, I Am Being Cynical.)

The company also denies any intent to extend its policy to regulate unhealthy eating, drinking, and sexual behavior, citing a number of voluntary wellness initiatives such as health club memberships and campus walking trails.

Hmm. I'm betting that statement is going to be used against them. These behaviors aren't forced to be in compliance with the company's attitudes, just smoking.

I understand that Michigan is an "at will" employment state, like all states but Montana. But what this comes down to is discrimination. This company has made a decision effecting workers which isn't directly related to illegal actions. The claim of costs falls flat due to smoking being the sole issue. So, was the decision made because the workers were failing in their work requirements due to smoking? Or, is it that they just assumed that because they were smokers, that they were unacceptable? Sounds like discrimination doesn't it?

The "At Will" employment argument also falls down when the case for discrimination is made. See this article.

Even if the at-will doctrine applied in a case, it would not negate numerous antidiscrimination laws. In every jurisdiction, federal and state law protects at-will employees against adverse employment action on the basis of race, color, sex, age, national origin and disability.

Many states and municipalities also prohibit discrimination based on things such as sexual preference, positive HIV/AIDS tests, marital/family status, arrest record, genetic carrier status, military and jury service, and a host of other status or conduct categories. Other local laws prohibit or limit AIDS and drug testing, and polygraph analysis.

Well, you think with all the tobacco lawsuits out there and the finding against that industry, wouldn't that lead one into addiction as a disability?

This article points that the Weyco actions in most states aren't actually illegal, but they are discriminatory.

After offering programs designed to help workers quit, Weyers in January announced the company would begin screening workers for smoking, and that those caught taking a puff would be fired.

Though more than half of U.S. states have laws on the books preventing employers from discriminating against smokers, Massachusetts isn't one of them, making Weyers a potentially attractive example for employers looking to save a few bucks.
Though she said she doesn't know of any employers taking similar steps, Marcy Goldstein-Gelb, executive director of the Massachusetts Coalition for Occupational Safety and Health, worried Weyers' example would set a dangerous precedent.

"It's absolutely a slippery slope," she said. "This may not be illegal, but it's certainly a discriminatory process.

"Where do they go from here? Testing what we eat? The environment we live in? Extensive DNA testing?"

Questions like those were also on Framingham resident Stephen Zielinski's mind when he heard about the Weyco policy.

"Are they going to tell people not to overeat?" he asked. "What about people who go on ski vacations? They could break their legs. The guy is full of it."

"Do not tell me I can't smoke in my home," LeGay said. "It's going too far. It's legal, (and it's) my home, my car and my time."

This article also spreads a bit of knowledge relating to "At Will" employment.

Even employees who do not have written contracts of employment may be able to bring actions based upon the content of employee handbooks or manuals. Where a company document of that nature outlines a disciplinary process that must precede termination, the failure to follow that process may support a wrongful termination suit. If such a document states that employees will only be fired "for cause", an employer may have to document valid cause, such as the employee's failure to meet performance standards, if the termination is challenged.

Many employers insert language into their handbooks and manuals in an effort to avoid this type of consequence, to the effect of, "Nothing in this manual constitutes a contract of employment between the employer and its employees, and the employer may at its discretion elect not to follow any guidelines or procedures set forth herein in association with employee discipline or termination."

Some states will permit an "at will" employee to bring a lawsuit on the basis that the employer violated an implied covenant of "good faith and fair dealing" in association with the termination decision. In such states, even with an at-will employee, the employer must extend some degree of fairness in the decision to terminate employment.

Not being a lawyer, I think maybe I can ask some law blogger for opinion on the case.

I've stated this conclusion before, I hope this gets jammed up the owner's backside. (sideways)