I agree that it is ridiculous to fire someone for smoking but barring a contract, I believe we work at the pleasure of our employers and they have a right to terminate employment at any time for any reason, or for no reason at all, just as the employee has the right to quit at any time.

The article cited seems to imply that the employer was paying for health care for its employees. In that case, a credible case could be made that off-the-job smoking impacts their bottom line through increased health insurance premiums. If that is the case, I frankly think they're justified.

Of course, one could argue that eating excessive amounts of fatty foods increases health care costs too. But for better or worse, health insurance specifically identifies smoking as a risk factor and boosts premiums to compensate.

The solution of course is simple: allow employers to pass the smoking premiums onto those employees that need it.

As the comment above indicates, this will be an interesting fault line. It will place "conservatives" who believe that corporations should be able to do whatever they want in common cause with nanny-state liberals who believe that we should all be made to do what is healthy.

Those conservatives and liberals who believe that corporate and state power to limit individual freedom will be on the other side.

Next in line---BOOZE. That way the boss gets to fire himself!!!

At will employment is at will employment.

...and if they were paying for health care, it seems to me like they have a legit reason to fire him.

If you don't like your "no smoking" job, quit.

Most health care plans have separate costs for tobacco users vs. non-tobacco users.

That said, there is nothing in the article that indicates that this was a health care issue. The company spokesman says, rather enigmatically, that "They're irrefutably doing things that harm themselves and they're asking us to pay for that." Not sure exactly what he means by that. This sounds like a company that is overstepping its bounds.

I have no problems with employers enforcing strict codes of conduct on its employees while they're on the clock -- in fact, I expect it. They also have a right to regulate off-work behavior, but only as it affects their work performance. For example, if a guy drinks heavily, that's his business -- until he shows up drunk or too hung over to work.

I disagree with you slightly. I would also throw in "conduct that affects the company's reputation." Including, for example, if you end up with a drunk driving conviction (on your own time) and you're, say, the manager of your employer's main factory in the community, and therefore the company's "face" there.

--|PW|--

When it comes right down to it, the company has the "right" to impose any sort of off-the-clock code of conduct they want as long as it doesn't infringe on any constitutional or statutory protections, and smokers are not a protected class of people.

I'm not sure what sort of "bounds" are allegedly being crossed here, but it's pretty simple: if you want to smoke, go work for someone who allows it.

Let's not forget the irony here---the guy was fired for possibly smoking after hours...

by a lawn mowing company.

Unless those lawn mowers were electric, they were spewing out roughly the same amount of air pollution in a day as a car does in a month, not to mention the sound pollution.

Wow, so much support for firing smokers.

Next in line:

Those who drink ANY amount,
Those taking prescription drugs,
ANY other pre-existing condition,
overweight people,
diabetics,
people of a certain race particularly prone to certain diseases,
GAYS!,
etc. etc. etc.

Smokers need to establish a religion in which smoking is an integral part. This would be similar to religions that require wearing certain items, eating or refraining from certain foods, and praying certain times of the day. The rules of what defines a religion are not hard to meet and once the religion is established it will be much harder for employers and even governments to infringe the smoking behavior of the religion's members.

Maybe one of the resident atheists could set up this religion and make a lot of money in the process.

Don't be silly...

> Those who drink ANY amount,

Fine. No problem. Don't like it? Work elsewhere. Someone is going to hire all of the good drinkers. Besides, I guarantee that someone is already doing this.

> Those taking prescription drugs,

Aside from likely being ruled illegally discriminatory (disability protection), this is highly impractical.

> ANY other pre-existing condition,

Okay, but it's impractical and would probably be a PR nightmare.

> overweight people, diabetics,

Never happen -- even worse PR nightmare.

> people of a certain race particularly prone to certain diseases, GAYS!,

Both illegal already.

Observer 5 and LJD and are on the right track. The issue here is simple:

Does an employer have the right to dictate your behavior in the privacy of your home? Yes or no.

If yes - where does the line stop? Is it merely a "health care cost" issue? If so, then please explain why the company cannot also forbid you from other behaviors or activities that carry a health risk such as eating fast food (higher incidence of obesity and heart attacks), using various prescription drugs with a track record of injurious side effects (such as birth control pills and the incidence of breast cancer), monitor / forbid alcohol intake (possibility of drunk driving), being an active homosexual (possible HIV from unprotected sex) or being a horndog (STDs).

If no - congratulations. You still have an understanding of liberty and privacy.

Oh, and BTW - anyone wishing to respond to this should refrain from throwing "secondhand smoke" junk science statistics into this thread. That nonsense is about as scientifically valid as the global warming cult.

Nice pithy responses, there, Pete, but it all boils down to "I don't like messy smokers, and they won't fight back when I bully them, unlike the lavender mafia and the fatties and the Viagra junkies. So smokers can f**k off."

In a way, it's refreshing to see people just coming right out and embracing discrimination when it suits them.

What struck me is how the executive freely admitted to smoking cigars but he is not punished. That seems to be a double standard to me.

So if my vegetarian boss decides to fire me because a ate a Big Mac, that would be OK because putting that evil beef inside me doesn't fit his philosophy of what is 'good' for me?

Or maybe another boss doesn't like my intake of white flour-based food, or that I ate a Hershey bar on the weekend.

I am not a smoker but back when I worked construction I learned to carry a pack because of breaks. If a non-smoker took a break we were reprimanded and I was once fired for "leaning" on my shovel while all the smokers were standing next to me smoking. They were not even spoken too. Thats when I bought my "break" pack. I have seen too many times where smokers were given some slack and actually cut into production.

Plus it stinks.

So I guess you also oppose city ordinances banning smoking at private establishments?

Yeah, I hate those bans, too. And they make about as much sense as this policy by this lawn care company.

cmd: what about the "liberty" of an employer to hire and fire whoever they want?

And what about the "freedom" of an employee who doesn't like the rules at work to GO SOMEWHERE ELSE?

hermie: Yes. That's exactly right.

The invisible had fixes this so-called "problem" -- it works like this:

If employers fire, or refuse to hire, a member of a certain class (smokers, for instance) who are qualified, they will suffer a disadvantage in the market to employers who hire the best employees regardless of their personal habits.

If everyone in a given market refuses to hire people of that class, someone will come in, hire up all of the smokers and have one heck of a business... even if the break room reeks.

...and anyone who wants to start with the slippery slope... let's look at the other side of the coin: at what point CAN someone's out of work behavior effect their firing (and what does that do to so-called 'at will' employment)? When the employer can mathematically prove an impact on a bottom line? When the act done outside of work is illegal? When it could embarrass the company? When it DOES embarass the company? Never?

"Freedom" means being able to do as you please... it does not mean being able to do as you please with no consequences. People are more than willing to smoke... but that action might have consequences.

Not that I'm firing any of the smokers that work for me, but a bunch of you are sounding just like a bunch of whiny democrats... you too, Jay.

Since when did conservatives get to the point of wanting to have government protect us from all the things we don't like, including our big heartless employers? What ever happened to the idea that the option for someone who didn't like the terms of their employment was to quit and go find work elsewhere?

And since when did conservatives (or, at a minimum, conservative leaning types) think it's okay to do more than the absolute minimum at restricting an employer's ability to run his/her business the way they want? What do you all want next, for the courts to ban NBA teams from prohibiting their players from riding motorcycles after games and to ban companies from firing their CEO when they find out he hangs out at strip clubs in his spare time?

An employer ought to be able to hire the people he/she feels brings the most value to the organization. And if they feel that a smoker, even one who only smokes off hours, is a lousy deal, then they ought to be able to not hire such a person. We may not like what the employer does, but we're supposed to respect their right to do so.

this will likely be ruled discriminatory...lol

my prediction...a good lawyer will prove that smokers are addicts and suffering from some form of brain chemistry disability...that this guy can't be fired because of the Americans with Disabilities Act and then this guy will get a huge payoff because he was discriminated against because of his disability

'let's look at the other side of the coin: at what point CAN someone's out of work behavior effect their firing'

Never, unless they get arrested and have their name in the paper, or their behavior affects their work performance.

Pete- you scare the hell out of me. Since when is it any of your employers business WHAT you do off hours? What do you want, company cameras installed in your house?

'An employer ought to be able to hire the people he/she feels brings the most value to the organization. And if they feel that a _____, even one who only _____ off hours, is a lousy deal, then they ought to be able to not hire such a person. We may not like what the employer does, but we're supposed to respect their right to do so.'

So what with women, gays, minorities, etc.? Just another whiny democrat policy?

I was refused employment in restaurants and bars during college because I was not a woman. What 'they were looking for' was a girl with tits (No, it wasn't Hooters or a gentlemen's club) to serve their food. I found work elsewhere, but is that right?

What if he's trying to quit by being on the patch - or nicotine gum? He'd still test positive for nicotine.

It's pretty simple, LJD, even though you seem to be missing the point:

If you don't like it, don't work there. Period. It's the old "you live in my house, you play by my rules" thing... you want th epay check? You do what you're told. Don't want to do that? Find another job. Simple.

Minorities are protected because of a history of systemic discrimination and for no other reason. No such thing exists for smokers.

Would you guys support a company that banned after work hours driving? If the company had a policy about the modes of transportation you used while on vacation? How about where you vacation? You all can come up with a dangerous activity that a company could complain about. Try it.

LJD: society chose to provide protection to minorities because of what they 'are'. smokers aren't born smokers the way someone is born black or female or black and female. notwithstanding their claims about being addicted, they choose to smoke so discriminate against them all you want.

Minorities are protected because of a history of systemic discrimination and for no other reason. No such thing exists for smokers.

We're getting there, though, aren't we?

I am with the lawn-care company on this. They are paying for that man's health insurance. If he wants to smoke, fine. But the company has every right to dictate what conditions they will underwrite.

I keep saying that this kind of thing is going to keep getting worse. We are well on our way down the slippery slope to "true equality".

Howcome: actually, it depends on what you mean by "support".

Would I support their right to have such stupid hiring codes? Yes.

Would I work for such a company? No. I like to drive.

Would I do business with such a company? Honestly, I'm not sure.

Yeah...the next thing you know they'll be firing people who FART on the job. And I don't wanna hear any of that second hand intestinal gas crapola...

Pete, had the best point, above. How many other people could you fire, because you think they MAY drive up your health costs?, certainly I can see a few:

Diabetics: Too many prescriptions...
Obesity: too much chance of heart complications..

Fire them?

How about this one?

people who are sexually immoral? ... this might be lead to increased risk for HIV.
Perhaps, to eliminate the possibility of future costs, ... fire them now?

and lastly, does a chance at sickle cell enemia, and increased risk of heart attack, mean firing black males over the age of 50? ... I think not.

I believe the company will be sued, and this will be a non issue.

Sorry not pete but LDJ, above. Thanks for the update J.

Robert, let's be clear: while it wouldn't surprise me if they are sued, do you believe the lawsuit should succeed? If so, on what basis in law do you think it should prevail?

Let's be clear, Robert: reductio ad absurdum is not a legal argument. So in what way is it against the law for an employer in an at-will employment state to terminate an employee for smoking off-duty.

How about this: I work for a lawn service company and don't smoke. I get lung problems. I sue the company for not protecting me from the exhaust fumes. Do we ban power mowers? Or do we make the company furnish oxygen mask? No smoking rules can come back to bite you in the pertooty.

I was not a smoker when I was working as a painter back there in the dim recesses of history, but the people I worked with were. We'd be up on our respective ladders painting, and every half hour or so -- sometimes much less -- the guy I was working next to would stop and light a cigarette, smoke the whole thing, th