Employers Sticking Nose in Personal Lives

[mrbowler]

I understand that the courts have upheld the ability to do stuff like this, but I think this needs to be changed when it comes to the matter of your living arrangements outside of work(Im only talking about this issue-Just a FYI).

How many young people go around asking about somebody's living arrangement??

"Pat Miller said they attempt to set a good example in the community because their business draws young people"


[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

Leslie Goodard, director of Idaho's Human Rights Commission, said the policies don't appear to violate Idaho employment law.

"There is no statute that directly prohibits discrimination based on marital status, and sexual orientation is not protected," said Goodard.

[katlnhats]

Interesting.... I agree that this needs to be changed ASAP. It brings back memories of when I was managing a store and it was in "our" handbook that you weren't supposed to see other employees outside of work. I thought that was going too far. Did I keep the rule? No.
Nor did I ask my employees (two of whom were sisters!) to keep it. I don't think it's anyones business who you see or where you live or who you live with. To me, as long as you're doing a good job, that's the important thing.

Kat

[mrbowler]

I have no idea how often these types of things happen. Some states have taken action to prevent. I pointed this article out because it seems to be a spreading occurence(at least reported) into various aspects of individual privacy(discrimination). Here is another type of situation(s).


Employers Tell Workers to Kick the Habit:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

Every time he tried to quit smoking over the past 40 years, Jim Doerr was thinking about his health.

He never imagined the nasty habit could potentially hurt his career.
But now that a company in Michigan is saying it won't employ smokers, Doerr and others who smoke cigarettes wonder if other businesses could jump on the bandwagon.

"It sounds like a precedent that can get out of hand," said Doerr, a materials purchasing manager at Hoyt Corp. in Englewood. "Like next I can't read a particular book or newspaper that the boss doesn't approve of. It all sounds a bit overboard."

It may sound extreme, but in an effort to rein in soaring health-care costs, a small but growing number of employers are telling their workers that if they ever light up, they're out of a job.

Weyco Inc., a 200-employee Michigan-based medical benefits firm, stopped hiring smokers in January and told its existing employees to either quit the habit or leave. Four workers who refused blood tests for nicotine were fired, raising new questions about how far bosses can go in trying to regulate legal activities their employees participate in when off duty.

Weyco and other employers say smokers hurt the bottom line. A Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine study, for example, says smokers cost employers about $ 3,000 more each year when medical, productivity, absenteeism and work-break losses are tallied.

A Seattle-based property management company two years ago began asking applicants if they smoke, in an effort to keep them off the payroll, and other firms are simply charging their smokers more for health coverage.

Alan Westin, president of Privacy & American Business, a Hackensack organization that tracks privacy issues, said Weyco's decision to fire existing employees is "a bit much as long as smoking is not unlawful, and as long as the individual performs on the job."

But that argument is harder to make for a smaller company, which could see its health-care costs swell with even a single smoker on the payroll, Westin said.
"Is that employer obligated to hire a smoker? That's a much tougher thing to say," Westin said. "But people start to wonder if it also means a person who eats a lot of Big Macs can also be excluded."

But Donald Maguire, CEO and president of Hoyt Corp. doesn't foresee telling Doerr or his 50 other employees that they can't smoke, or for that matter, load up on pizza and beer during their free-time.

"I do have a smoking policy for the building," said Maguire, whose company manufactures electrical components for power equipment. "And I know that health-care costs are a national issue, but it's a bit tough to have that kind of policy. I just don't have the right to tell my employees what they can do in their private lives and I wouldn't want to."

Former "diehard smoker" Joyce Hamrah said the outright ban is "over the top," but admits to at least nudging employees or others around her to quit.

"Give them literature or tell them how you stopped, but as far as making somebody stop, it's just not our right," said Hamrah, an owner of upscale women's clothing store Hamrah's in Cresskill. "I don't allow smoking in the store, but ultimately I can't tell people what they can or can't do outside the store."

Twenty-nine states, including New Jersey, have employment laws that are interpreted to protect some smoker's rights.

Michigan has no such law.

But Martha Lester, chairwoman of the Employment Law Practice Group at Lowenstein Sandler in Roseland, said the Michigan firings run "roughshod" over privacy protections in the U.S. Constitution.

"I take issue with it because, in my view, reaching into someone's bedroom, bathroom or living room and telling them they can't smoke is just extremely offensive," Lester said.

Existing state law would make it difficult for a New Jersey company to follow Weyco's lead, she said.

"I'm not saying it can't or won't happen here, because once these issues pick up momentum we tend to find them coming all over the country," Lester said. "But they would be subject to considerable challenge here."

David Morrison, a partner in the labor and employment group with Chicago law firm Goldberg Kohn said there is a history of battles over an employer's discretion in hiring.

"This isn't new," said Morrison, who wrote about this issue for legal journals in 1992, a year after Cracker Barrel issued a memo to 106 stores declaring that the company would no longer "employ individuals in our operating units whose sexual preferences fail to demonstrate normal heterosexual values."

The company later retreated.

"It was a big issue at the time and led to the enacting of privacy laws to protect employees from the long-arm reach of employers," Morrison said.
Similar laws protect employees against discrimination based on ethnicity, age, gender, religion and disability -- and increasingly, on sexual orientation.

"The question is where does it stop?" Morrison asked. "With bungee-jumping or riding a motorcycle on the weekends? With obesity?"

That said, Morrison believes the Weyco policy is perfectly legal because most workers in America are at-will employees, meaning they can quit or be fired at any time unless a specific law says otherwise.

"The core issue is whether or not this is legal. And what the employer has done here is legal because Michigan state law doesn't prohibit it," Morrison said. "Whether it's right, or whether it will be challenged, are other questions entirely."

[mrbowler]

I like this one.

Colorado man says Budweiser distributor fired him for drinking Coors:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

Ross Hopkins still likes to drink Bud, even though he says a brief tryst with a Coors beer cost him his job at a Budweiser distributor.

Hopkins, 41, is suing American Eagle Distributing Co., saying the company wrongly fired him for drinking Coors in a bar two years ago.

"They flat-out told me 'We're putting food on your table so you could put it on theirs?"' he said Tuesday. "I thought I could drink it, no problem."

Hopkins' lawsuit, filed in a Greeley court, seeks unspecified damages for lost wages and benefits. No trial date has been set

Jeff Bedingfield, an attorney for the distributor, declined to comment, saying: "American Eagle prefers not to try this case in the media."

Colorado law says workers cannot be fired for a legal activity while off duty and away from work. There are exceptions, such as when a worker's actions relate to an occupational requirement or create a conflict of interest.

In a court filing, American Eagle said Hopkins' termination "was necessary to avoid a conflict of interest with his responsibilities to American Eagle and/or the appearance of such a conflict of interest."

Hopkins, who was a warehouse supervisor for the distributor, said he was not wearing a uniform or representing American Eagle when he was at the bar in May 2003 with some co-workers. He said he had ordered a Budweiser but a waitress brought Coors. He decided to drink it because he didn't want to wait.

The son-in-law of the distributor's majority shareholder also was at the bar, and offered twice to buy him a Budweiser, but Hopkins turned it down both times.

He was fired the following Monday.

[mrbowler]

Last but not least

You better support the candidate of somebody else's choice

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

A man who heckled President Bush at a political rally was fired from his job at an advertising and design company. The graphic designer said he was told he'd embarrassed and offended a client who provided tickets to the event.
"I was told that my actions reflected badly on the company and that a client was upset," Glen Hiller of Berkeley Springs said.

Hiller was escorted from Hedgesville High School on Tuesday after shouting comments about the Iraq war and the failure to find weapons of mass destruction there. The crowd had easily drowned out Hiller with its chant: "Four more years."

Arriving at his job with Octavo Designs in Frederick, Md., the next morning, Hiller said he was "shocked" to learn he was fired. A woman at the company who declined to give her name confirmed Hiller was axed because of his conduct at the rally.

"They see my actions as negative," Hiller said, adding he'd do the same thing again. "There is no venue for the regular guy to ask a question. We don't have access to people in power. And those events are completely scripted and controlled."

Last month, Charleston City Council apologized to two protesters arrested for wearing anti-Bush T-shirts to the president's July 4 rally. The pair were taken from the event in restraints after revealing T-shirts with Bush's name crossed out on the front and the words "Love America, Hate Bush" on the back. Trespassing charges were ultimately dismissed.

[katlnhats]

Those are very good articles. Amazing, but good. In one there was mention of "smaller companies", not wanting smokers. I'd be willing to bet that those smaller companies don't or can't afford to do drug testing on their employees!
So, what would their motto be? No smoking, but come to work high as heck? LOL
One of the companies I managed (with two other managers), ran credit checks, if you didn't pass, you didn't get the position or any other with the company, I took a drug test (blood drawn), but one of the other managers took the hair test and someone messed up because she had a permanent bald spot that was very noticable. It was OK with them if we smoked though, which is a good thing as I do.

Kat

[mrbowler]

Originally Posted by katlnhats

Those are very good articles. Amazing, but good. In one there was mention of "smaller companies", not wanting smokers. I'd be willing to bet that those smaller companies don't or can't afford to do drug testing on their employees!
So, what would their motto be? No smoking, but come to work high as heck? LOL
One of the companies I managed (with two other managers), ran credit checks, if you didn't pass, you didn't get the position or any other with the company, I took a drug test (blood drawn), but one of the other managers took the hair test and someone messed up because she had a permanent bald spot that was very noticable. It was OK with them if we smoked though, which is a good thing as I do.

Kat

It just surprises me that only some states have certain protections in place, and a more uniform policy/policies are not in place. It seems that if the government can tax cigarettes, and allow to be legal then employers need to recognize that. You bring up a interesting point about credit checks..personally I think sometime these are just used as a excuse to validate the reason for not hiring someone-you know if that individual is say way overweight or doesn't present the image, or say that older potential employee whose health care costs/insurance are say much higher then a younger worker

[katlnhats]

Yes, I believe there is many incidents of what I'd call discrimination in the workplace.
I asked why credit checks were being done (I passed mine, but lots didn't, maybe that's why they needed the job?), and I was told that if you can't pass a credit check, you're a bad risk to the company. That never made sense to me. To me, and this was years ago, it seemed like the people who would have done a good job and had every reason to really "need" their paycheck would be the ones who owed money to creditors. Either way, it really didn't seem fair.

Kat

[mrbowler]

Originally Posted by katlnhats

Yes, I believe there is many incidents of what I'd call discrimination in the workplace.
I asked why credit checks were being done (I passed mine, but lots didn't, maybe that's why they needed the job?), and I was told that if you can't pass a credit check, you're a bad risk to the company. That never made sense to me. To me, and this was years ago, it seemed like the people who would have done a good job and had every reason to really "need" their paycheck would be the ones who owed money to creditors. Either way, it really didn't seem fair.

Kat

No doubt...Sometimes an unfortunate accident or major recently discovered illness can completely ruin a family, and they file for bankruptcy which hits the credit-big time!

[katlnhats]

Originally Posted by mrbowler

I like this one.

Colorado man says Budweiser distributor fired him for drinking Coors:


Hopkins, who was a warehouse supervisor for the distributor, said he was not wearing a uniform or representing American Eagle when he was at the bar in May 2003 with some co-workers. He said he had ordered a Budweiser but a waitress brought Coors. He decided to drink it because he didn't want to wait.

The son-in-law of the distributor's majority shareholder also was at the bar, and offered twice to buy him a Budweiser, but Hopkins turned it down both times.

He was fired the following Monday.

LOL, this one is really something. I wonder if you work for Coca Cola if you can drink Pepsi???

Geeezzz,

Kat

[mrbowler]

Originally Posted by katlnhats

LOL, this one is really something. I wonder if you work for Coca Cola if you can drink Pepsi???

Geeezzz,

Kat

Apparently not...LOL...I believe in this case he was on the job.


Coke Driver Allegedly Fired For Drinking Pepsi:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

[katlnhats]

Originally Posted by mrbowler

Apparently not...LOL...I believe in this case he was on the job.


Coke Driver Allegedly Fired For Drinking Pepsi:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

LOL!!!!! I can't believe you found that one! Way to go!

Kat

[mrbowler]

Well..here we go again. Why don't these companies base hiring on ability to do a job, and if a person is charged a higher cost for coverage that it would be passed on to the employee..then the company can decide to offer incentives if it doesn't want smokers(ie higher costs). How about a test to determine any potential future health care problems? How about a test to see if you have high cholesterol?


[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

"In more general terms, this case challenges the right of an employer to control employees' personal lives and activities by prohibiting legal private conduct the employer finds to be dangerous, distasteful or disagreeable," the lawsuit said.

The Scotts Co., a subsidiary of Scotts-Miracle Gro Co. of Marysville, Ohio, instituted a policy early this year forbidding smoking to promote healthful lifestyles and hold down insurance costs. In the 20 states that allow such policies — including Massachusetts — the company refuses to hire smokers and tests all new employees for nicotine, said Jim King, Scotts' vice president for corporate communications and investor relations"

[WhaddaDeal006]

I don't know if I agree with it or not, but if, as you stated, it is legal in the state, and the (then) prospective employee agreed to it as a condition of employment (which I believe he did), then that is and should be binding.

We've seen these types of cases on drama law shows, but most recently I heard about it in real life cases about a month or two ago? When C.Lidle (pitcher for the NY Yankees) was killed when his plane crashed into a building. News/Sports casters were discussing how many players having stipulations in their contracts that do or do not allow them to do certain activities the team deems as dangerous.

The legal rights behind it really are the same, while the motives may or may not be different.

People can agree to some pretty bizarre things; when the agreements are legal and willingly agreed upon, they must live up to their contract. If not, the consequence will be suffered. So, unless the law is changed, maybe he shouldn't work at a place where he has to agree not to smoke (or better yet...just stop smoking).

[WhaddaDeal006]

Originally Posted by katlnhats

t brings back memories of when I was managing a store and it was in "our" handbook that you weren't supposed to see other employees outside of work.

"see" in the visual sense or even hanging out as friends, relatives, etc. or "see" as in dating?


I've known places that frown (forbid?) dating employees, especially people of different levels (e.g. manager/subordinate), but I've never heard of not allowing people to socialize period! Interesting....