Workplace Testing For Nicotine?

[Scoobz0202]

Anybody ever heard of this? A local business put a notice out to their employees that said starting January 1st, 2011, they will be testing for nicotine. They will become a completely smoke-free business. If you wear a patch, do the inhaler, or chew the gum, you will fail the test. Failure will result in immediate termination.

I do not work there, but a family member does (1st cousin) so this was all passed on to me from her. Is this even legal?

Edit: I don't think this family member would blow smoke but this just sounds too crazy to be true. I don't believe she would exaggerate. But this just seems too damn crazy to be true. To say you can't smoke at all.. even out of work? She just blowing smoke up my ass?

[DaddyTorgo]

If it's a private business...sure they can.

[sabotai]

I've heard of this happening before. I'm pretty sure we've had a thread or two on this in the past too.

[MrBug708]

Yup. I would imagine the government will eventually end up doing something like this

[illinifan999]

I could've sworn a couple police departments in Virginia make you sign a form stating you will not smoke while employed.

[k0ruptr]

How is it legal though? isn't smoking legal? I don't get it. Can they basically test for whatever they want, regardless of legality and terminate you?

[k0ruptr]

BTW could anyone that was an owner of a business do this to their employees?

[Scoobz0202]

Originally Posted by k0ruptr

BTW could anyone that was an owner of a business do this to their employees?

I think this is where we are both young and have yet to fully learn how fucked up the world is.

Or something like that.

[k0ruptr]

just was reading an article or two and apparently 30 or so states have laws protecting smokers:

hxxp://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4745

[k0ruptr]

whats next? lol

hypothetical business starts testing for caffeine and says any caffeine consumption by an employee will result in immediate termination.

[RainMaker]

First off, it's a retarded policy for any company to have. Probably drummed up by some morons in an HR Department who heard about it at a seminar.

I think it's legal. Not sure how I feel about that, but usually I side with letting a business owner hire/fire who he wants. If they want to fire someone because of behavior, so be it. Although I don't think it should be legal to test the blood/hair/saliva/piss of an employee.

[Lathum]

The question I have is if it helps reduce the cost of health insurance premiums.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Lathum

The question I have is if it helps reduce the cost of health insurance premiums.

Perhaps. But what if your top salesman who brings in millions smokes a cigar on the golf course once in awhile? It's just a moronic policy on so many levels. Hiring/firing should be done on whether the individual is profitable to the company or not. Not on their behaviors at home.

[k0ruptr]

I actually really doubt it reduces the insurance premiums all that much

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by k0ruptr

I actually really doubt it reduces the insurance premiums all that much

As much as I hate to comment on these sorts of posts.... big companies don't pay insurance premiums, they pay their own claims - so they might find big savings from not having employees who smoke. Throw in the fact that they know smokers are less productive because of the breaks and the math works for them.

[Galaxy]

The Cleveland Clinic is perhaps the most well-known example of this.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Although I don't think it should be legal to test the blood/hair/saliva/piss of an employee.

How would you do a drug test?

Originally Posted by k0ruptr

whats next? lol

hypothetical business starts testing for caffeine and says any caffeine consumption by an employee will result in immediate termination.

How does caffeine compare with smoking/tobacco?

[k0ruptr]

it was just a joke...lol

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by k0ruptr

it was just a joke...lol

Don;t worry, I got that it was a joke

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

How would you do a drug test?

They probably wouldn't.

I don't think companies should be in the business of searching the contents of someone's own bodily fluids.

[cougarfreak]

I can see the smoking thing, if it reduces health care premiums.......but straight up nicotine? Guy has a patch on, he gets fired. I wore the patch for a couple of months after I gave up smokeless tobacco after 20 years.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by cougarfreak

I can see the smoking thing, if it reduces health care premiums.......but straight up nicotine? Guy has a patch on, he gets fired. I wore the patch for a couple of months after I gave up smokeless tobacco after 20 years.

That's a good point, if an employee is trying to quit and using Gum or the Patch I can see this causing legal problems for the company.

I understand promoting wellness, but if you are doing this why not test cholesterol levels and BMI too?

In terms of the insurance premiums, most companies that have group plans are rated on a pool, not on the indivdual claims experience of their company (There are some exceptions) and in most cases employees don't even fill out any type of questionaire, so the insurance company would not even know. The smoker/non-smoker insurance issue is much more prevelant when obtaining life insurance as opposed to health and even then only effects the individual's premium who smokes.

If you want to say you are doing this to hold down medical costs then have a premium tier for people who smoke as oppposed to trying to tell them they can't do something that is completely legal.

[tyketime]

I found a couple of examples where this has occurred:

According to the company, it's an economic issue. The company said it is trying to reduce escalating health care rates, and it claims each smoker could cost the company an additional $4,000 a year. That raises insurance premiums. Representatives said, "It's unfair for us to ask our employees to pay for the cost of smoking."

An employer adopted a policy to hire only nonsmokers. After a new hire tested positive for nicotine, he was fired. He then sued the employer, claiming wrongful discharge and invasion of privacy.

What happened. In an effort to curb medical costs and promote a healthy lifestyle, the Scotts Company in Massachusetts adopted a policy prohibiting its employees from smoking, both on and off work. To monitor compliance with the policy, employees were required to submit to nicotine testing. New hire, “David,” was a smoker, but he never smoked at work or while on company property. David’s mandatory urine test was positive for nicotine, and Scotts immediately fired him. David sued Scotts on several grounds, including that his firing violated public policy and that the mandatory nicotine testing violated the state’s Privacy Act. Scotts moved to dismiss the claims.

What the court said. David’s public policy claim was based on his contention that he had a “right” to smoke cigarettes outside of work. The court noted that under Massachusetts law, an “at-will” employee, such as David, can be fired at any time, for any reason, unless the firing violates public policy. The public policy exception is limited to firing an employee for asserting a legal right, performing a legal duty, refusing to commit a criminal act, reporting criminal activity, or assisting a criminal investigation.

The court held that smoking was not within the narrow parameters of the public policy exception to the at-will doctrine. It agreed with Scotts that public policy in Massachusetts was less likely to be found in a right to smoke and more likely to be found in efforts to discourage smoking. Thus, the court dismissed this claim.

Next, the court examined David’s claim under the Privacy Act. David asserted that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in information about his legal activities outside of work. The court noted that the Act protects citizens from “unreasonable, substantial, or serious interference” with their privacy. Deciding whether Scotts’ antismoking policy violated David’s privacy required balancing Scotts’ legitimate business interest in “determining employees’ effectiveness on the job” against the seriousness of the intrusion on David’s privacy. Because this inquiry necessitated further factual development, the court denied Scotts’ motion to dismiss. Rodrigues v. The Scotts Company, LLC, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, No. 07-10104-GAO (2009).

Point to remember: Adopting a policy restricting employees’ off-duty conduct may not violate Massachusetts’ public policy, but it could lead to liability under a state law, such as the Privacy Act. Any such policy should be reviewed by an attorney before implementation.

[Noop]

Please legalize weed.

[JediKooter]

Makes me wonder how many people in upper management that smoke that DON'T have to take the test.

[NewIdentity]

If this is for insurance reasons; are they requiring all family members to be tested too?

[Rizon]

If it's for insurance reasons, couldn't this lead to the slippery slope of terminating unhealthy (fat) employees? Maybe do a McDonald's test to see if there is grease up in them veins. Or terminating people with sports cars.

Just don't see how this will end up flying.

[JediKooter]

What's funny (not funny haha) is that a lot of states are 'at will'. A company can let you go for absolutely no reason, which, that's their right. However, using the excuse of higher insurance premiums based on what someone does off company property and off company time is wrong. Just because it's "legal" to do so, doesn't mean it's right. If a company wants to dictate what an employee can or can not do off company property and off company time, then those employees should be getting paid while not at work.

[Masked]

Originally Posted by Rizon

If it's for insurance reasons, couldn't this lead to the slippery slope of terminating unhealthy (fat) employees? Maybe do a McDonald's test to see if there is grease up in them veins. Or terminating people with sports cars.

Just don't see how this will end up flying.

No one is born addicted to smoking (but may be born with a predisposition to becoming addicted if they start smoking). Cholesterol and obesity are murkier - people have naturally different cholesterol levels and naturally different baseline weights. Now for the majority of people their choices are the major factor in determining their cholesterol or weight, but that's not true for everyone. That small class, which is legally protected, probably save the majority who could (and should) live healthier lifestyles given that the company is footing the bill for their poor choices.

[Rizon]

Originally Posted by Masked

No one is born addicted to smoking (but may be born with a predisposition to becoming addicted if they start smoking). Cholesterol and obesity are murkier - people have naturally different cholesterol levels and naturally different baseline weights. Now for the majority of people their choices are the major factor in determining their cholesterol or weight, but that's not true for everyone. That small class, which is legally protected, probably save the majority who could (and should) live healthier lifestyles given that the company is footing the bill for their poor choices.

What if the 2 year old smoking kid from Cambodia (or wherever) grows up to get a job at one of these companies? The debate could be endless.

[Masked]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

What's funny (not funny haha) is that a lot of states are 'at will'. A company can let you go for absolutely no reason, which, that's their right. However, using the excuse of higher insurance premiums based on what someone does off company property and off company time is wrong. Just because it's "legal" to do so, doesn't mean it's right. If a company wants to dictate what an employee can or can not do off company property and off company time, then those employees should be getting paid while not at work.

Alternatively, the company should not have to pay higher insurance premiums for the employee's lifestyle choices outside of work.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Masked

Alternatively, the company should not have to pay higher insurance premiums for the employee's lifestyle choices outside of work.

There seems to be solutions to that problem that are far less drastic than requiring that all their employees not smoke.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Masked

Alternatively, the company should not have to pay higher insurance premiums for the employee's lifestyle choices outside of work.

And that I agree with. Charging the employee more instead of firing them would be the right thing to do orrrrrr not insure them.

[Masked]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

And that I agree with. Charging the employee more instead of firing them would be the right thing to do orrrrrr not insure them.

I definitely think this is the best solution is to charge people more based on their lifestyle choices and resulting health risk profile. Then people would have an immediate economic incentive to make better choices, because clearly, the promise of a better quality of life 10+ years from now doesn't work for many people in our immediate gratification society.

Probably would have to do it a bit backwards though and instead charge everyone a higher premium and then offer discounts/rewards to those who make "good" choices.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Masked

I definitely think this is the best solution is to charge people more based on their lifestyle choices and resulting health risk profile. Then people would have an immediate economic incentive to make better choices, because clearly, the promise of a better quality of life 10+ years from now doesn't work for many people in our immediate gratification society.

Probably would have to do it a bit backwards though and instead charge everyone a higher premium and then offer discounts/rewards to those who make "good" choices.

It would be interesting to see something like that implemented and how it works out. I would definitely be more motivated to change to healthier habits, but, feel the rules would have to be very narrow so there's not much left to interpretation that can be done by either party.

[Airhog]

Originally Posted by Masked

I definitely think this is the best solution is to charge people more based on their lifestyle choices and resulting health risk profile. Then people would have an immediate economic incentive to make better choices, because clearly, the promise of a better quality of life 10+ years from now doesn't work for many people in our immediate gratification society.

Probably would have to do it a bit backwards though and instead charge everyone a higher premium and then offer discounts/rewards to those who make "good" choices.

They did that where I worked at previously. If you did certain things such as exercising, regular checkups, etc, you earned points. Earn enough points and you didn't have to pay your insurance premium anymore

[terpkristin]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

As much as I hate to comment on these sorts of posts.... big companies don't pay insurance premiums, they pay their own claims - so they might find big savings from not having employees who smoke. Throw in the fact that they know smokers are less productive because of the breaks and the math works for them.

Even not-so-big companies pay their own claims (mine does).

I was thinking, it would make a lot of sense for something like this to be enforced for health insurance premiums. I can see similar things happening with weight/obesity in the not-too-distant future.

/tk

[Rizon]

How would you treat employees who are disabled and can't exercise?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Rizon

How would you treat employees who are disabled and can't exercise?

They are a protected class.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

They probably wouldn't.

I don't think companies should be in the business of searching the contents of someone's own bodily fluids.

No one forces you to work for a company that drug tests. I wouldn't want someone who does illegal drugs working on airplanes, cars, or anything where safety is a big concern.

[k0ruptr]

I really think the next thing (seriously) is alcohol testing. I mean Alcohol has health effects (liver, kidneys) and side effects, can effect your health insurance rate for sure I assume, not to mention DUI's, drinking and driving, working with a hangover (lost productivity)

obviously you can't drink at work. but people drink all the time away from work, same with smoking. This is where it gets interesting for me.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by k0ruptr

I really think the next thing (seriously) is alcohol testing. I mean Alcohol has health effects (liver, kidneys) and side effects, can effect your health insurance rate for sure I assume, not to mention DUI's, drinking and driving, working with a hangover (lost productivity)

obviously you can't drink at work. but people drink all the time away from work, same with smoking. This is where it gets interesting for me.

Then the next step is fast food.

Then the next step is checking family history.

Then the next step is nanomachines being injected into our bodies to make us more productive.

Then the next step is the nanomachines revolting and war being waged between those controlled by the rebelling nanomachines and those that didn't get the nanomachine injections.

We're fucked.

[MJ4H]

SIGN ME UP FOR THE NANOMACHINES

[JediKooter]

Cyberdine Systems Model 101...

[k0ruptr]

Ima fucking kill me a nanobitch tonight.

[Rizon]

NANOMACHINE RIGHTS!

[terpkristin]

I expect that one day, I'll be half machine. I demand my rights!

/tk

[GrantDawg]

I NEEED A CIGARETTE!!!! (Three months and going insane).

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Masked

Alternatively, the company should not have to pay higher insurance premiums for the employee's lifestyle choices outside of work.

Again this is not applicable to all employers. Those with large group plans generally don't require heath questionaries and their premiums are rated on geographic regain, not each individuals habits.

The employer also has the right not to subsidize an employees premium or a smaller percentage which doesn't really effect their bottom line.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Masked

I definitely think this is the best solution is to charge people more based on their lifestyle choices and resulting health risk profile. Then people would have an immediate economic incentive to make better choices, because clearly, the promise of a better quality of life 10+ years from now doesn't work for many people in our immediate gratification society.

Probably would have to do it a bit backwards though and instead charge everyone a higher premium and then offer discounts/rewards to those who make "good" choices.

Agreed and a much better approach. The healthier your lifestyle the more your employer subsidizes your premium.