As was said, I think that while this move could be seen as invasive, I don't see how it's illegal. If his workers are that bothered by the rule, then they are certainly free to seek other employment.

While it's a big move, I again don't see how it could be called illegal. Very interesting, and if opposing litigation fails, I wouldn't be surprised to see more companies try something like this.

Saying a pro athlete or actor can't do this or that is quite a bit different than saying Joe Blow can't. If Brad Pitt or Donovan McNabb goes skydiving and dies, it has an impact on everyone who was either working on Brad's latest movie or everyone affiliated w/ the Eagles. We're talking hundreds of people. If Joe Blow goes skydiving and dies, well, the company pays the death benefit to his family and they're done. The company doesn't fold because of it. There's simply no comparison.

There is such a thing as Key Man coverage where you can take out higher insurance on the CEO and such so the co doesn't go under if he dies. However, all companies should have a succession plan in place. Any CEO who doesn't do this is remarkably short-sighted. Point being that there is no insurance against running your business crappily.

The fact of the matter is that the longer people live, and the more ways we invent for people to live longer, the higher insurance premiums will be. I've seen groups full of retirees that are still on insurance that a generation ago, probably wouldn't have existed - they would all be dead.

Uh yeah, that's why I said too bad they couldn't get away with it, but thanks for enlightening me about workplace laws.

Smoking has side affects that do affect your work. Hey if you get sick more often that results in less work.

Either way, it's a free country and the guy has the right to hire or fire those based on preference since it's not hate and they aren't entitled to special rights.

-Rudey

Gosh I wish my old job would have realized that you can fire someone for smoking. I think at least 50% of my co-workers smoked. They would all go outside every twenty minutes and light up. And then the admin would complain about how messy we were with cigarette butts.

But as a non-smoker, it's no fun wanting to get some fresh air outside and to find that half the office is outside lighting up. :rolleyes:

I actually heard on the radio this morning that the obese actually can make up to $4,000/year less than their not-obese counterparts.

Obviously I'm not going to lecture anyone w/ a JD on workplace law, but I was pointing out that your post was completely irrelevant to the topic in order to prevent it from being an issue for others (aka trying to stay on-topic). Why did you even bring it up?

From the article:


There are many unanswered question regarding this policy. One of them being regulation. Would it cost them $$ to do mandatory urine test on ALL employees? random urine test? Does anyone know how long Nicotine stays in your system?

Also, how frequently will they test? what is the cost of rehiring and retraining new employees when old ones are dishonest and break the policy?

Nicotine In Blood
 

Question: How long does nicotine remain in your system(if you are trying to quit) how long after you quit would it not show up in blood or urine?

Answer: Nicotine will be out of your system in 48 hours or so. It is usually detectable in urine for 3-4 days depending on the sensitivity of the test.


How long does nicotine stay in your blood stream? Better yet, how long can it be detected in your blood stream?

Nicotine has a half-life of two hours, meaning that half of the nicotine in your body is gone in two hours. It depends on how much you have taken in as to how long it would remain in your body, but theoretically there would not be much in your system after a day or so. I do not know of any employment drug tests for nicotine at this time.

Re: Nicotine In Blood
 

Thanx for the quick reply.

Also, there is the issue of second-hand smoke. What if an employee lives with a smoker? Second-hand smoke should have stronger nicotine level, as it does not pass through the filter of the ciggerrette. How will the company control that aspect?

I am sure the health effects of second hand smoke will creep into this,I too wonder how the employer will address these issues like respiratory illnesses, lung and heart disease from 2nd hand smoke.

Second Hand Smoke
Question: How bad can smoke effect someone who doesn’t smoke when they’re in a well vented room with a smoker.

Answer: A lot of debate here. There are two potential effects. The first is the immediate effect. It is clear that children exposed to smoking parents will have higher rates of respiratory illness. Also, the susceptibility of the non-smoker to asthma in particular will vary widely. Some patients will have severe asthma triggered by minimal smoking -others with no trigger with heavy smokers. Long term there appears to be a higher risk of lung cancer and heart disease in spouses of smokers; but, there is heavy debate here.


Edited to include:
The article I posted below says that cotinine levels are a marker for smoke exposure in non-smoking workers

American Lung Assoc
 

www.lungusa.org has some interesting stats



Workplaces nationwide are going smoke-free to provide clean indoor air and protect employees from the harmful, life-threatening effects of secondhand smoke. According to a Gallup poll, 95 percent of Americans, smokers and nonsmokers, now believe companies should either ban smoking totally in the workplace or restrict it to separately ventilated areas.1


Employers have a legal right to restrict smoking in the workplace or to implement a totally smoke-free workplace policy. Exceptions may arise in the case of collective bargaining agreements with unions.2

A smoking employee costs the employer at least 1,000 dollars per year in total excess direct and indirect health care costs, compared with a similar nonsmoking employee.3

Some employers have been forcing smoking employees to pay higher premiums for medical coverage. However, no organization appears to keep statistics on those criteria.4

Employers that hire smokers bear indirect costs, including more employee absenteeism, decreased productivity on the job and increased early retirement due to ill health.5

Workers have been awarded unemployment, disability and worker's compensation benefits for illness and loss of work due to exposure to secondhand smoke.6

Tobacco smoke is a major source of pollution in most indoor air environments, particularly office work sites, and has been classified as a Group A carcinogen by the U.S. EPA. Tobacco smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, both gas and particulate matter.7

The toxins in tobacco smoke kill over 440,000 people per year in the United States. Secondhand smoke causes over 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually, as well as exacerbation of lung disease in nonsmoking adults and respiratory problems in children. Secondhand smoke also causes 35,000 heart disease deaths in nonsmokers each year.8

A recent study found that people who were exposed to smoke in the workplace were 17 percent more likely to develop lung cancer than those who were not exposed.9

Involuntary smoking has many non-fatal but serious effects; breathing secondhand smoke makes the eyes and nose burn, and can cause headaches and nausea in nonsmokers. These irritants can have a major impact on employees' morale, productivity and sense of well being.10

Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia have some restriction on smoking in public places. Of these states, 45 restrict smoking in government workplaces, and 25 have extended those limitations to private sector workplaces.11

In August 1997, President Clinton signed an executive order requiring federal buildings to become smoke-free.
Nearly 70 percent of the United States workforce worked under a smoke-free policy in 1999.12

Prohibiting smoking in the workplace can have an immediate and dramatic impact on the health of workers and patrons. A study conducted in Helena, MT, found that the number of heart attacks fell by 40 percent during a six-month period in 2002 when the city's comprehensive smokefree air law was in effect.13

Bans on indoor smoking have not had a negative effect on the economy. In Florida, the statewide smoke-free law, which took effect July 1, 2003, has not hurt sales or employment in the hotel, restaurant and tourism industries.14

In Delaware, there has been an increase in the number of restaurants and taproom licenses since the smoking ban took effect.15

In New York City, a study found that business receipts for restaurants and bars has increased 8.7 percent, employment has risen (2,800 seasonally adjusted jobs), and cotinine levels (a marker for smoke exposure) in non-smoking workers decreased by 85 percent since the smoking ban was put in place.16
For more information on tobacco, please review the Tobacco Morbidity and Mortality Trend Report in the Data and Statistics section of our website or call the American Lung Association at 1-800-LUNG-USA (1-800-586-4872).

Actually my life insurance policy with prudential questioned me about these activities. If I do them, I wouldn't qualify for a certain level of coverage. If insurance companies can do it, why not the workplace?

It is indeed intrusive, but let's not attack a radical decision because you are afraid he'll open the door to any and all other affairs.

Right now all he is attacking smoking and overweight people, two very huge problems in the workplace. Until he suggests no sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll, don't create any ridiculous hypos.

I'm fine with this. Less competition for me.

I agree that it sets a dangerous precedent for the future. After he's done with those who smoke and who are overweight, then who? A diabetic who eats a donut? Someone with high cholesterol who eats an egg for breakfast? Someone with high blood pressure who eats a bag of salty potato chips?

Also, what if these employees DO quit smoking using the aid of Nicotrol, Nicorette or the patch? Won't they have nicotine in their systems even though they aren't smoking?

If employers want to ban smoking on their premises, during work hours, that's fine. It frightens me to think that an employer can own you all day and night, every day and night. They get 8.5 hours a day out of me, sometimes more if in case of emergency, but no pay in the world is high enough for an employer to own me! My time is MY time.

Dee

I agree with this, and also think that unless you're actually impaired on the job, whether you do illegal drugs at home, on your own time, is not your employer's business. Of course I'm free to choose not to work for anyone who conducts drug testing, so I don't think it's really a problem.