Workers quit instead of taking random Nicotine drug tests

[Bum Fudge]

Not sure if I'm posting this in the right forum or if it's been posted before but has anyone else heard of this?

Random nicotine drug tests at work?

Where will it end? Breath tests for supersize cheeseburgers or pork fat?

 

[MadAl]

It started with drug testing, anything's possible Bum. Is there anyway to tell if one has been drinking French wine?

 

[cvm4]

That's just wrong and should be stopped before it gets out of control. What you do on your own free time is your business. Once off the clock, the employer has no right in saying what you can and can't do. Simply wrong!

 

[Jwrussell]

I didn't read the hole thing, but I think your title may be misleading. If this has to do with "Weyco", the employees quit rather than take the test. I do agree that this is ridiculous. In fact, if I remember right, now Weyco is looking at doing the same thing with overweight people. Go on a diet or lose your job.

 

[gonz]

I didn't read the hole thing, but I think your title may be misleading. If this has to do with "Weyco", the employees quit rather than take the test.

See... nobody reads.


Union Pacific Corp., an Omaha-based transportation company, stopped hiring smokers in seven states.

Weyco Inc., an employee benefits firm with 200 employees in Okemos, Mich., began random drug tests for nicotine on Jan. 1, saying it would fire workers who failed the test or refused to quit smoking.

The Riverside County Sheriff's Department plans soon to require applicants for deputy sheriff positions to sign a no-smoking agreement.


A sheriff's office in Florida is asking job applicants who have a recent history of smoking to pass a polygraph test proving they no longer smoke outside of work.

 

[gonz]

No offense to you JW... but bro, if you don't read, you're oblivious.

That there is FOUR places... and i'm sure theres more.

WE ARE now as bad as those... oooooo... POTHEADS!


I sure hope none of YOU build airplanes!

 

[Jwrussell]

Bro' Gonz. No offense taken my friend, but I think maybe it's you that need to read. My point was that based on the information in the article, nobody has ACTUALLY BEEN FIRED. I never argued that they were not hiring people based on them smoking or that they WOULD be fired if found to be smoking. My point was SPECIFICALLY that the article had no info on anyone actually being fired, unlike the title.:smt102

And again I'll restate. I think this is going to far. No question about it. And no, I still have no problem with drug testing. Figure out a way to only test if people are using on the job, and I'll whole heartedly endorse it.:smt023

If we aren't careful, they are going to throw a dang politics room on this board and then we'll REALLY be in trouble!

 

[gonz]

My point was that based on the information in the article, nobody has ACTUALLY BEEN FIRED. I never argued that they were not hiring people based on them smoking or that they WOULD be fired if found to be smoking. My point was SPECIFICALLY that the article had no info on anyone actually being fired, unlike the title.

You are correct. A number of people stood for whats right, and quit instead of getting terminated. Quit, don't submit. It's quite possibly what i would do in their shoes. One could argue that was a dumb move, considering a termination is something worthy of a lawsuit, especially with a half dozen people involved.

You are missing the slippery slope aspect, on all counts.

 

[Jwrussell]

And I quote myself:

And again I'll restate. I think this is going to far. No question about it.

Edit to add: oh yeah, I must admit I was VERY surprised to hear that there has been no legal action yet, and that none of these folks decided to let themselves be terminated so as to act as a jumps start for legal action.

 

[gonz]

The legalities were being debated by a couple lawyer-sounding dudes at CW. The fact they can debate the issue of right or wrong in this case seems to me that perhaps no clean-cut case = no lawyer on contingency? I know hiring a lawyer who isn't confident enough to take a case on a contingency basis does'nt sound like a smart bet to me.

And another aspect... most companies, especially law enforcement, have legal staff or lawyers on retainer. Call me crazy, but i'd be willing to bet any company enacting this no-smoking crap has covered their asses pretty well legally.

Finally... it does'nt surprise me they quit. People often feel helpless. Sometimes, enraged, we make dumb decisions. What do you do when you don't know what to do? Also i'd rather say i left because of personal rights violations and threats, than tell a potential employer i was fired for smoking.

I'm hoping with all the press coverage, someone steps up to help them.

 

[Bum Fudge]

I couldn't figure out how to fix the title so it reflects that no one has actually been fired yet. I edited the original post to try and do that.

I was hoping to get some feedback about the article instead of my title. I'm sorry. I guess being threatened and forced to quit isn't the same thing. I suspect the semantics would be lost on those workers who are out jobs. If this gains momentum and is legal then none of us are safe. It wouldn't surprise me that healthcare premiums in the not to distant are based on lifestyle and risk factors and proofs thereof.

 

[Bum Fudge]

Finally... it does'nt surprise me they quit. People often feel helpless. Sometimes, enraged, we make dumb decisions. What do you do when you don't know what to do? Also i'd rather say i left because of personal rights violations and threats, than tell a potential employer i was fired for smoking.

I'm hoping with all the press coverage, someone steps up to help them.

It may have been 'Leave and take this severance pay or buyout package and of by the way sign this agreement not to sue' or get fired and have nothing.

 

[David]

I couldn't figure out how to fix the title so it reflects that no one has actually been fired yet.

Fixed.

David

 

[Jwrussell]

It may have been 'Leave and take this severance pay or buyout package and of by the way sign this agreement not to sue' or get fired and have nothing.

Had not thought of that Fudge. I could easily see that happening.

So devil's advocate here:

Ignoring the slippery slope issue, and assuming we are only talking of cigarette smoking, what of the employer's claims that this is called for due to the rising costs of health insurance premiums?

 

[Slammer]

The bottom line on this whole thing is that the company was forced to to make this policy because of the rising costs of their insurance premiums. That is where the problem lies. I see it more and more where employees are asked to pay part of the premiums and they balk at it they consider their insurance to be an entitlement. Insurance started out as a way for employers to attract employees after WWII when there was not that much of a labor pool but over the years it has grown into this monster that no one seems to be able to control. I'm not for this type of policy but I wonder did the company ask the employees to pay a greater share of the premiums? My guess would be the employees either did not want to see an increase in their premiums or the company felt that the increase was to much to pass on tho their employees.

 

[Bum Fudge]

So devil's advocate here:

Ignoring the slippery slope issue, and assuming we are only talking of cigarette smoking, what of the employer's claims that this is called for due to the rising costs of health insurance premiums?

Well health care costs go up for everyone because of escalating medical costs due to many other factors in addition to smoking. I guess the employers claim can only really be valid if they can assure their health care provider that no one smokes and negotiate lower premiums otherwise it really doesn't matter (unless they are self funded plans).

I also must add that I couldn't find out if the 4 Weyco employees who resigned were in fact actually smokers or resigned rather than submit to a test they felt was an invasion of privacy. Perhaps they were just making a statement.

As a follow on (down the Orwellian slippery slope) I would assume that a much higher percentage of the population smoked before many risks were known and it was popularized in movies and the media. Try and watch movies from the 40's or 50 were smoking isn't portrayed. So my point is I would assume that less percentage of the US population smoke now (less people smoking but health care costs continue to skyrocket), but since smokers consume more medical benefits we want them to pay their fair share. That's understandable to a point. We get asked for other risk factors when filling out health questionaires like family history of certain diseases that we can be genetically likely to get. Shouldn't those folks also pay higher premiums too? How about those that do not exercise and Supersize with fries? If you are obese?

Hmm. I wonder if a cigar a day non-inhaler would fail such a test? My company offers a $150 yearly rebate to non-smokers. They simply ask you one question every October when you sign up for benefits. Have you smoked a tobacco product within the last 30 days?