Invasion of Privacy - Don't say it never can happen.........

[hammAR]

http://www.local6.com/news/14537611/detail.html

Fla. Companies Forbidding Smoking In Private Lives

ORLANDO, Fla. -- A growing number of companies in Florida are forbidding their workers from smoking not only at work, but also in their private lives.

Westgate Resorts, the largest private employer in Central Florida, has banned smoking and won't budge from a policy of not hiring smokers and firing employees who do smoke.

"When I found out it was legal to discriminate against smokers, I put the policy in place," Westgate president and CEO David Seigel said.

Seigel told Local 6 that the policy was prompted by the death of his close friend -- a heavy smoker who died of cancer.

"If you are too stupid to understand that smoking is going to kill you, then we are going to tell you that if you want to work for our company, you will not smoke," Seigel said.

Central Floridian Ava Bryant said she was called by a recruiter for Westgate and told not to come in for an interview because Westgate won't hire smokers.

"I call it discrimination," Bryant said. "I'm not an avid smoker or a constant smoker. I just said I smoke. Sometimes I may pick up a cigarette and smoke."

But Local 6 reporter Steven Cooper reported that at Westgate, "sometimes" is one time too many.

Seigel said his policy is cost effective and said since it went into effect, health insurance claims have gone down significantly -- making insurance more affordable for employees.

The concern for privacy groups is that policies could extend beyond health issues.

"Why should non-smokers sympathize with you?" Cooper asked Bryant.

"Because, then if it's not for the smoking, it may be something else that may infringe on their rights," Bryant said. "So, how far are you going to go with it? Like, you wear pants so we are not going to hire you because you wear pants?"

"Anything we can do that is legal and not discriminatory, we will do," Seigel said. "If you are an alcoholic and we have the right to fire you, we will do so. And if you are obese and there is a way for us not to hire you or to fire you, we will do that, too."

"That sounds like discrimination," Cooper said.

"Well, I'm saying that anything that is not discriminatory," Seigel said. "If it is, we can't do very much about it."

Local 6 videotaped several Westgate employees leaving his building and smoking in a nearby strip mall.

Seigel said if those smokers are found out, they will be disciplined and assisted to quit smoking.

Seigel said when the non-smoking policy initially went into effect he gave employees a year to stop smoking and opportunities to receive counseling, patches and other smoking cessation programs.

Click here to see what Floridians are saying about the issue.

Tell us what you think. Send an e-mail to desk@local6.com.

[EAJuggalo]

Can't say it surprises me. I've heard anecdotally of a few companies that have done this, generally these policies are used to keep insurance costs down. It might be interesting to see if the FL Leg or Courts system does anything for what is obviously discrimination based on one's use of a lawful product.

[JonnyB]

Can't say it surprises me. I've heard anecdotally of a few companies that have done this, generally these policies are used to keep insurance costs down. It might be interesting to see if the FL Leg or Courts system does anything for what is obviously discrimination based on one's use of a lawful product.

A private organization should be able to hire and fire anyone for any reason. They ought to be allowed to discriminate for any reason or for no reason at all.

Only government should be prohibited from discrimination, as they have an absolute monopoly.

I'm not a smoker. It pisses me off greatly to have the government at any level decide to ban certain behavior or possession of certain substances. This situation, though, should be perfectly acceptable (and is, to me). It's an assertion of property rights and company prerogative.

jb

[Ironbear]

My workplace gives you a benefit discount if you check the "non-smoking" box. Right now it is on your honor, so I don't know what would happen if you lied. We also get a discount for filling out a health assessment questionnaire. If the assessment exposes some "issues", you are asked to do some phone-based education. If you don't do the education, you don't get the discount the next year, even if you take the assessment.

As far as the not hiring smokers story, I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand it seems pretty coercive (duh!) but on the other hand, it is like living with Mom and Dad. If they are paying the bills, they have some say in your behavior! At a company, in return for your paycheck, the company has the right to regulate some of your behavior on the job (get your work done!) and to some extent, off the job (don't show up for work drunk). If the company is paying a large portion of your health insurance premium, do they have the right to regulate behavior that impacts their costs (wear your safety glasses, don't walk behind forklifts, no smoking, etc.)? I may not like it.. but at some level it seems reasonable. This is one reason National Health Care bothers me. When someone else pays the bills, they get to say how much and how often. And, inevitably there would be some pressure to curb behavior that drives costs too high.

[Ironbear]

I'm not a smoker. It pisses me off greatly to have the government at any level decide to ban certain behavior or possession of certain substances. This situation, though, should be perfectly acceptable (and is, to me). It's an assertion of property rights and company prerogative.

So (to risk a threadjack) in light of that assertion, is it acceptable for a company to fire people for having legally owned firearms, stored in privately owned cars in a legal manner, in a company parking lot? How about parked on the street?

[dismal]

So (to risk a threadjack) in light of that assertion, is it acceptable for a company to fire people for having legally owned firearms, stored in privately owned cars in a legal manner, in a company parking lot? How about parked on the street?

What about guns at your home? Those are dangerous, right?

As long as you're doing you job properly at work, and not doing anything extraordinarily unbecoming away from work (ie getting arrested for tapping your shoe in a MSP bathroom or badmouthing your company on the internet), why should your company have any say in that? What's the point in having political freedom if you also don't have economic freedom?

[Thor]

I can understand having a no smoking policy on company property. However, when a company gets involved in one's LEGAL private life, that's just wrong. Do they do anything about those who are overweight, those that drink, those that talk on cell phones in their vehicle while driving?? Where does it end??

[Aceq2jot]

One of the questions on the Minnesota Advantage health care planis do you own a gun. This question is being asked in a survey that is a health assement that is supposed to gaurantee a cheaper co pay. Cant figure out what that has to do with some ones health.

[hammAR]

I can understand having a no smoking policy on company property. However, when a company gets involved in one's LEGAL private life, that's just wrong. Do they do anything about those who are overweight, those that drink, those that talk on cell phones in their vehicle while driving?? Where does it end??

Let's see, can I add child molesters and spouse abusers to your list as I think that these behaviors are more harmful overall than smoking...............

[ttousi]

One of the questions on the Minnesota Advantage health care planis do you own a gun. This question is being asked in a survey that is a health assement that is supposed to gaurantee a cheaper co pay. Cant figure out what that has to do with some ones health.

Must be concerned about lead exposure

[cobb]

Man, I don't know where to start.

Single and sexually active, weekend race car driver, drinking and gambling, where are they going to draw the line? All legal and risky activity in one shape or form and I even know that getting my wife mad at me could be more unhealthy for me than second hand smoke.

[nyffman]

Why don't health insurance companies make premiums reflect true costs? Then companies would only have to fire an employee for reasons that affect their job performance, not their health. If a lifestyle choices can be shown to affect healthcare costs, premiums for those choices would be higher. Over time, cause and effect should validate these decisions, or not. Neither employers nor government should be telling anyone which legal activities they can and can not take part in.

[Thor]

Why don't health insurance companies make premiums reflect true costs? Then companies would only have to fire an employee for reasons that affect their job performance, not their health. If a lifestyle choices can be shown to affect healthcare costs, premiums for those choices would be higher. Over time, cause and effect should validate these decisions, or not. Neither employers nor government should be telling anyone which legal activities they can and can not take part in.

Now, you're on the right track. I can buy that if a person smokes (or has other unhealthy lifestyle choices), they pay the higher premiums. The company will pay "X" amount for the average healthcare plan. I kind of thought that was how it worked anyways. Of the civilian healthcare plans I've been involved in, there were no "lifestyle" screenings.

[nyffman]

I can see a problem though, not being honest. No sir, I don't [hack, hack] smoke. I donnn drink neither any more. (course I don't drink any less either). There's probably tests, which I think are reasonable to conduct without invasion of privacy for things like this.

[hammAR]

I can see a problem though, not being honest. No sir, I don't [hack, hack] smoke. I donnn drink neither any more. (course I don't drink any less either). There's probably tests, which I think are reasonable to conduct without invasion of privacy for things like this.

Now you want to add "testing"?

So what if your family has a propensity for cancer or heart disease or MS, should you be tested and should you pay higher premiums? Should you loose you job or be refused a job?

Should you pay treble if you have a family history of cancer or heart disease AND you smoke?

.