HERE'S WHAT READERS ARE SAYING:

Wow, do they mean Whacko? As long as smoking is legal, they have no right to stop or halt workers from what they do on their own time. Let's go out on a limb and have them check for alcohol with breathalizer tests at the door. Let's also find out if they ban all people with cancer, pregnant, and other risky health issues. Ten or more pounds overweight? You might be next on their hit list. Does Weyco have a gym, pool, track, and an extra long lunch hour to assist in their employees' health? Day care? Healthy lunch options in their cafeteria? If not, they are on dangerous territory.

MC from Wisconsin

Smoking is not illegal (yet) Firing them for smoking off the job in their own home in my mind is unethical. How do they test for that? What if they live with a smoker and receive 2nd hand smoke. At the same time why should the company pay higher medical insurance rates for smokers and days they are out sick. Maybe another alternative would be to discontinue their health insurance and sick pay until they can pass the test successfully two times in a row over a certain period of time. Do you think obese people will be the next target?

John Wuthrich
SLC Ut.I

Jeffrey Seglin,
   I saw an article about your smoking survey in the Salt Lake Tribune in today's paper. (1/1/05)
   If I had my own company, I would try my hardest NOT to hire a smoker. I could care less what people do at home, but from my experience, smokers do less work.
   Sure, there are exceptions. Not all smokers can be lumped together. But from my experience, as a whole, smokers do less work.
   I did a lot of temp office work at various companies in the Salt Lake valley. I was amazed by the smokers and their work ethics. Besides the usual bathroom, lunch and runs to the soda machine that we all take, smokers take many more breaks. On average, the smokers I worked with would take at least 3 ten-minute breaks a day at work. As there is no smoking in public places, the smokers would have to go downstairs and outside. Those 3 breaks add up to a half hour a day of time they are not working, but are still most likely on the clock. That's two and a half hours a week less work than everyone else is doing. Ugh!

** Susan Tenhor **

Medical insurance covers injuries and maladies suffered at any time;
not just while on the job. (They have "workers' compensation" for that.)

Thus, an employer dares restrict behavior that raises its medical
insurance expenses, regardless when it occurs.

However, I know of no medical risk significantly increased by moderate
nicotine use. It is said to be an effective antidepressant, and actually
reduces risk of some maladies. Thus, Weyco is out of line in imposing
its unsupported biases on employees. I would consider this religious
discrimination. My objection would mostly evaporate if it first checked
carbonylhemoglobin level in employees before firing them, and then
asked for a defense, such as furnace malfunction, firefighting, or the
like. Point being that someone using nicotine gum or patch would fail
the nicotine use, yet impose no expense on the company. (Chewing tobacco
contains smoke, so its use increases risk of mouth and esophageal cancer.)
If they persist on this lame scheme, I hope they get sued and lose big,
perhaps even suffer effective boycotts of all their client firms.

Scott
Salt Lake City, Utah
Salt Lake Tribune reader

Regardless of the ethical issue, first thing that occurs to me is that they're probably looking at a wrongful termination suit. Second observation is that if I worked for some paternalistic joint like that, I'd vote with my feet and go elsewhere. The third and most pertinent observation is that this is a very slippery slope. If you concede the right to monitor lawful activities outside the office, where exactly do you stop?

Non-smokers may not care if employees get tested for nicotine. Non-drinkers may not care if they're tested for residual alcohol. However, people who have a high cholesterol level or who are overweight may feel offended when the employer demands to monitor their diets or exercise practices. Actually, excess avoirdupois and lack of exercise probably kill a lot more people than cigarettes.

Perhaps they ought to obtain information regarding physically dangerous activities. People who ride a motorcycle are going to go down; it is just a matter of when. People who scuba, ski, or go deer hunting should probably be forced to give up such activities for the good of the company and its health plan. The ideal employee would go directly home by the safest route to a padded room with a refrigerator filled with salad and an exercise bicycle.

Aside from health and lifestyle issues, if you concede the company's right to terminate people for legal activities outside of the workplace, why is any restriction inappropriate? Assuming for purposes of argument that a Republican administration is more favorable to the business than a Democratic one, could they fire somebody for being involved in politics in a manner antithetical to the good of General Bullmoose?

What about the politically incorrect soul who has a subscription to Playboy? Or one who writes letters to the paper in opposition to the company's anti-smoking principles and signs them--

David
Sun Prairie, WI

If I work for a company that is self-insured (and more and more are), and your smoking, on or off the job, causes you health problems, then my copay rates for insurance go up. If you persist in riding your motorcycle without a helmet and you have an accident, the chances of brain injury go up tremendously, and so do my rates. I don't mind if my fellow employee does something incredibly stupid, like smoking or riding a motorcycle without a helmet, so long as it doesn't affect my finances. So, yeah, I think the employer has every right to insist on nonsmokers. The employer is protecting the bottom line of every other employee, not to mention their health.

Kaye Jones, Groves, TX

Yes, we need to keep people from driving up the healthcare costs by controlling smoking. This doesn,t go far enough, obesity should also be included. We should go to a system like the fico credit score only score a persons health and the way the treat thier bodies.If insurance Co.s continue to raise the premiums 20% a year then no one will have insurance. Major action is needed now. I read your article in the Salt Lake Tribune. My name is Don Morgan and I am from Sandy, Ut.

Mr. Seglin:

I can't believe a company would try and get away with this! I'm not even a smoker, in fact I can't stand cigarettes. Isn't this illegal? Are they going to test for sugar next? Since it can lead to obesity, and diabetes.....which are both growing concerns for the healthcare industry??!!
There's too much "control" in this country already. They need to offer INCENTIVES for non-smokers.........or free programs to help smokers quit.

Peggy Matthess
Dana Point, Ca.
The Orange County Register

PS I LOVE YOUR COLUMN!!

Dear Mr. Seglin:

Much about smoking is being overdone as its in vogue. I have letters going back years that would require faxing to you. Please provide fax number.

We currently have one private club owner pushing to make Utah like N.Y. and California. If he did it just with his own clubs, he knows he would lose business.

Companies and government don't have the right to make smoking illegal except in one's own home. Our veterans have fought and died for these freedoms as well as the many others we enjoy as Americans.

We smokers are over taxed yet not supposed to use the facilities our taxes are used to construct. Is this just? absolutely not!

As to health care cost issues contained in your article in my S.L. Tribune the company Weyco is misguided. I had an uncle who died at age ninety-one. The last ten years of his life had little quality being in Coma's, rest homes, hospitals and rehabilitation centers. He never smoked or drank in his life.

The problem with health care costs is the medical profession trying to make everyone live to ninety or one hundred. This is where the excess expense is and with Social Security shortfall as well.

One cannot expect healthcare, Medicare and Medicaid, or Social Security to be solvent when being used for ten to forty years by 85% - 90% of the population. Thus if smokers die early they unburden the system, not cost it. It is amazing how special interests only look at one side of the ledger and this is particularly true of politicians. They are blinded by what's in vogue.

I believe you'll be interested in my previous correspondence and articles and thus hope you will forward your fax number.


Respectfully,
Bruce B. Wilson

Newspaper: The Salt Lake Tribune

Hello,

I was reading the article regarding the Weyco company in Michigan (dtd January 3rd.) and would like to submit a response, below is the required information:

Name: Sara J. Rudy
Hometown: Venice, CA
Newspaper: The Orange County Register

I am a non-smoker, however people still have the right to smoke.  America prides itself in being able to offer it's people the freedom of choice. If a person chooses to smoke outside of work, they should feel free to do so (in smoking areas, of course).

The brilliant executives at Weyco who approved this measure should be ashamed of themselves. They have contributed to the loss of there own freedom just to save a few bucks. What's next, firing obese employees who refuse mandatory exercise programs, or perhaps not hiring a qualified candidate because thier family history forcasts diabetes or cancer? At what point will companies stop and say, this is getting ridiculous?!

Thank you.

Weyco may have the goal of trying to help its employees lead healthier lives terminating those employees who will not agree to stop smoking, in addition to "control health care costs that MIGHT be driven up by smokers."

Obesity (which I understand is now a greater national problem than tobacco use) certainly causes a multitude of health problems. Alcohol, a legal substance, causes a variety of health problems, mental so well as physical and causes absenteeism. And then what about those baby producing women? Childbirth is medically expensive, and maternity leave is costly for the employer.

Under what law can a company control an employee's behavior when the employee is not on company property? It is not against the law to smoke, drink, overeat, and procreate in one's own home.

I hope every employee of Weyco fired for nicotine use will sue Weyco. Maybe then in the future, Weyco will decide not to test employees for medical obesity, use of alcohol, or pregnancy. And I wonder if any of the "powers-that-be" who decided to fire employees for nicotine use are medically obese, drink alcohol, or have taken maternity leave? Maybe THEY should be terminated, so health care premiums might not go up!

Elizabeth Dull
Ashland, VA
Richmond Times-Dispatch

Anita Gay
Chicopee, Mass.
Sunday Republican
1/9/2005

I would say that wanting to keep their health-care costs down is understandable. However, even though I am completely against smoking, I tried to put myself in a scenario where I might be told what I can or cannot use if I were employed there. And I did that. I have a problem with caffeine, and if I have any in my coffee, tea, or soft drinks, etc my heart rate is affected, and before I realized that I had a problem, I did have to visit a doctor.  So, I guess what I'm saying is that I  wouldn't want "Big Brother" to try to control my life whether it was on the job or on my own time. No, it isn't right.

Can/should a company attempt to regulate smoking behavior of its employees
off the job by firing/not hiring them?
I say no, even though I am a non-smoker.
The justification is to control costs to the health plan. But what about
exercise and diet? I think obesity also results in a lot of cost to the
health plan. What about sex? HIV is expensive to treat. What about
sports and other hazardous activities? What about alcohol? The list goes
on and on.
Let's not, as a matter of public policy, go there.
Russ Bakke
Orange, California
the Orange County Register

Is it right for a company to dictate which legal substances an employee can
use, even when not on the job? Absolutely. An employer should be able to
hire and fire whomever it pleases. If a private employer wants to lose the
talents of smokers, then that should be well within their rights. The
aggrieved employees can come back and haunt the ex-employer by working for a
competitor and doing a bang-up job.
David J. Kupstas
Richmond, VA
Richmond Times-Dispatch

Well here we go. Employers controlling people's lives.

Smoking is bad for health - no argument there. Does every smoker die of cancer? Of course not.

We're talking about what employees do outside of work in their own homes. How far do we enter their personal lives and spy on their health habits?

How many Twinkies does one eat to match the health risks of smoking? How many excess pounds over the "healthy weight" guidelines can an employee go - what did that employee cook for supper last night??? How many bottles of booze did the employee drink after work? How many employee's vomiting up their supper (in their own bathrooms at home) from bulimia (yes, that's a costly health problem?)

If Weyco really gave a damn about employee health, they would "control" all bad health practices of their employees - not just smokers - right? Well they can't control all employees to that extent so why go after one group and ban them from working there? They may be passing up a genius (who does smoke) who can triple their business sales - HOW STUPID!

I'd have to sue Weyco to prove I could not perform a particular job description because I smoked a cigarette, or ate a Twinkie, or drank Vodka at home last night. When the "experts" decide that using Splenda causes cancer, and dieting employees keep using it, will Weyco test them for chemical use and subsequently fire them?

So, Weyco, an employee benefits company, has decided that employees who test positive for nicotine will be fired. I have two serious issues with that.
First of all, if they are concerned that smokers are a health-care risk, than what will be next? Will they start screening employees who are not members of a gym? After all, obesity has become the latest cause for concern regarding American's health. If a blood test reveals that an employee has been consuming too many carbs will they be fired? What about people who drink? Alcohol related accidents must be a health-care concern as well (there was no indication that the test would differentiate between a heavy smoker and a light smoker, so a light drinker would be as much of a health-care risk as a heavy drinker). It would be interesting to know if Weyco screens their employees for crack or marijuana use (both of which are illegal) as well as for nicotine (which IS legal)!
Secondly, what if an employee tests positive for nicotine due to second-hand exposure? It has been argued that people who live with smokers are also at risk of developing respiratory problems due to second-hand smoke. Does that mean that a healthy person who works for Weyco, can be fired simply because of their roommate's habits?
I feel that Weyco is seriously overstepping their boundaries here. Wanting to cut down on health-care costs is understandable. But they simply should not be able to dictate what employees do OFF the job.
Deborah Battle
Richmond, Va.
Richmond Times Dispatch reader

Jeff,

Regarding Weyco testing employees for nicotine use, sounds too Orwellian for me.

I am not a smoker, in fact detest the stuff, but think there must be a better way for Weyco and others to handle their concerns regarding employees who smoke. What about exploring the possibility of providing a sliding scale structure to their health insurance premiums?  Those who choose to smoke will pay more, based on historical data of smokers and their health care costs compared to non-smokers.

My brother-in-law just found out he can't sky dive any longer without having his insurance rates go up, so why not the same kind of logic regarding smokers? Just a thought.

Phyllis Polster
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake Tribune

The testing for nicotine by the company can easily be included into their random drug and alcohol testing of employees. Then they can do a visual exam of the employees to determine which are overweight and add those to the list of terminations. I'm sure they have the results of the physical exams given to each of the employees prior to offering those people a job. Those records will show any chronic condition for an employee and the names of those people can be added to the list also. Eventually, Weyco will have to address older employees as they have higher rates of illness than 20 somethings and the 50 year olds will have to go too. I certainly wish Weyco well in their efforts to cut their benefit costs as that is their core business. That is a very rocky road they have chosen.
Anaheim, CA and my newspaper is the Orange County Register
Buck Weinfurter

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in the e-mails to The Right Thing: Sound Off section of this Web site are solely the views of the those who sent them. They do not reflect the views of Jeff Seglin, The New York Times Syndicate or The New York Times Company.