Florida Companies Forbidding Smoking In Private Lives

[Wondermonkey]

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.

source.

[Desi Cuse]

[ZoomZoom71]

Congrats to the CEO. Great move! Now, let's just wait and see which party introduces legislation to add "hereditary addictions" to the list of laws for EEO.

[Quo]

This will be interesting to watch, to say the least.

[NOHABLA]

This is B.S. I live in Central Florida and I cant get a job because I smoke. Does smoking affect my job performance no so who cares, rediculous.

[Peench]

Depends on a variety of factors. How often someone smokes could result in too many "breaks" that are not supported by company policy or law. Also, smoking is not a protected activity so I don't see why they can't adopt a policy such as this... I guess I'm biased though for personal reasons I won't elaborate on here.

That being said, California has a smoking ban on places of employment to prevent others from being subjected to second hand smoke. Take for example the pregnant woman working in a restaurant that has to inhale 2nd hand smoke all day while working. That has been prevented with a labor code here in California. Something similar could work as a middle ground in FL perhaps.

[Wondermonkey]

Originally Posted by NOHABLA

This is B.S. I live in Central Florida and I cant get a job because I smoke. Does smoking affect my job performance no so who cares, rediculous.

Well, they do have a right to set standards for their employees.

"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.

[ZoomZoom71]

Yeah, there really is no argument for the fact that smoking does indeed affect one's health. In some circles, smoking is a drug addiction, and how many companies make applicants submit to a drug test prior to employment. Makes sense to me.

[dmiller68]

Originally Posted by NOHABLA

This is B.S. I live in Central Florida and I cant get a job because I smoke. Does smoking affect my job performance no so who cares, rediculous.

Well yes it does, do you take smoke breaks? How often do you take them. I know several of our developers quit smoking becuase we are now on the 23rd floor. Given the health cost related as well I can understand doing it to.

[namehater]

i understand the no-smoking at work because of breaks and what not, but your gonna tell me that i cant do something in my own house that is 100% legal?? f' that

the last place i worked at went tobacco free, but that didnt stop anybody from it, they just had to 'hide' out when they did their deeds, their intentions were to lower the cost of the the insurance, its not like the employees got a lower rate, just them, so f' it!

just because you dont smoke or dont like smokers dont be biased, take a hobby/addiction of your own and put that in place of smoking and see how you feel about it, lets say drink soda or coffee, neither of those would be considered 'healthy' right? but wouldnt you be pissed if they said you not only couldnt drink it at work, but not even at your house, or as a matter of fact NEVER

[Wondermonkey]

I think if my soda or coffee drinking was scientifically proven to be a leading cause of cancer, I may side with my employer in blocking that as well. Also, if my drinking of soda or coffee was scientifically proven to cause innocent bystanders cancer, I may also side with them.

Not saying it doesn't, hell, they could find out it totally does, but until they slap a Surgeon's General Warning that basically states "By doing this, you're increasing your chances of dying by a whole crap of a lot," I think that banning is safe.

What's interesting is that, by doing this, they're sort of treating Tobaccy as a drug, like Heroin or Cocaine. They don't want their employees doing them, and they refuse to employ them if they do. It may set an interesting standard for other employers to come.

[Elite Ronnie]

I dont have a problem with the folks that own anything making the rules for there own establishment. I used to be a smoker before I got married. Im very glad I quit but I also see why people smoke. Its kinda like if you like eating debbie cakes, its not going to improve your health but you enjoy it. I do have a problem with government telling a store owner that he has to make his store smoke free. I feel its a free country so if you own a store its the same as owning your home. I dont let people smoke in my home but if I wanted to let them I could choose to let them, I think the same should go for restaurants and stores. Me and my wife and son wouldnt go to your restaurant if it was full of smokers but its your right as the owner to do as you please with your property as it is my right to choose to not go to your property. So if this guys not going to hire smokers then thats fine. Its his buisness he can do what he wants with it. Heck I wouldnt hire a smoker in my cabinet shop.....mostly because i'd be afraid he would lite the place on fire, ha ha. That was a lil off the subject I know.

[Serren]

I can say that this is a slippery slope without taking a side. Should this employer be allowed to ban his employees from mountain biking, bungie jumping, snow sking, parachuting, or any other recreational sports/hobbies that are dangerous to ones health?

There are many dangerous things people expose themselves to for fun. Some professional athletes are forbidden to ride motorcylces! Of course they sign contracts in advance. Could/would a normal business ask their employees to do the same? I dont think so. Not without massiviely infringing on the rights of their workers. "Employees, you are now forbidden to hike or rock climb ever again. It can be dangerous to you, and we don't want our rates increased."

[KEEZY]

I'm interested to see if the lower insurance costs are passed down to the workers. With my parents owning a small business, I know just how hard insurance companies bite the owners. If you think about it, insurance companies have the right to drop you whenever they want for what you do at home. My brother is diabetic, and his insurance is awful. It seems this "ability" can be passed to the employers too.

[AngryMongoose]

I live in Orlando and I've been a non-smoker all my life. I don't matter to me what they do as long as I don't smell it, plus I work outside all the time.

[ZoomZoom71]

Originally Posted by KEEZY

I'm interested to see if the lower insurance costs are passed down to the workers.

When the employer is paying roughly 75% of the cost, I think it's fair to expect that lower cost NOT to be passed down. If anything, the company saving money will only HELP the value to that company's stock (for a publicly traded company, anyway).

[Causedawg 83]

Originally Posted by Elite Ronnie

I dont have a problem with the folks that own anything making the rules for there own establishment. I used to be a smoker before I got married. Im very glad I quit but I also see why people smoke. Its kinda like if you like eating debbie cakes, its not going to improve your health but you enjoy it. I do have a problem with government telling a store owner that he has to make his store smoke free. I feel its a free country so if you own a store its the same as owning your home. I dont let people smoke in my home but if I wanted to let them I could choose to let them, I think the same should go for restaurants and stores. Me and my wife and son wouldnt go to your restaurant if it was full of smokers but its your right as the owner to do as you please with your property as it is my right to choose to not go to your property. So if this guys not going to hire smokers then thats fine. Its his buisness he can do what he wants with it. Heck I wouldnt hire a smoker in my cabinet shop.....mostly because i'd be afraid he would lite the place on fire, ha ha. That was a lil off the subject I know.

Perfectly said in my opinion. If a company doesn't want to hire smokers, as far as I'm concerned, they don't have to. Their decision. The cool thing about that is, that if enough people don't like it, they won't support the business, and the business won't last. I hope that doesn't happen with this company, though. It sounds to me that this company is taking a stance on health, which is something too few do today. Hell, it makes a lot more sense to me tell someone to excersize and not become obese than to widen the doors and buy all new chairs. If you cater to people who choose an unhealthy lifestyle, you're not giving them any reason to change it.

[Causedawg 83]

Originally Posted by Serren

I can say that this is a slippery slope without taking a side. Should this employer be allowed to ban his employees from mountain biking, bungie jumping, snow sking, parachuting, or any other recreational sports/hobbies that are dangerous to ones health?

There are many dangerous things people expose themselves to for fun. Some professional athletes are forbidden to ride motorcylces! Of course they sign contracts in advance. Could/would a normal business ask their employees to do the same? I dont think so. Not without massiviely infringing on the rights of their workers. "Employees, you are now forbidden to hike or rock climb ever again. It can be dangerous to you, and we don't want our rates increased."

I thought of something to note on this as well. I don't think that the company is catering to an unhealthy lifestyle if the employee is spending his/her spare time hiking or rock climbing. I think that the biggest benefit this company is getting is the fact that they no longer have to cater to employees by dealing with smoke breaks, disgruntled employees because they "need a cigarette", etc. I could be wrong, but that's how I see it (I know there are insurance benefits as well, but I doubt they are that significant). As for things like rock climbing and hiking, these are fitness related hobbies. There may be a danger associated with them, but there's a danger associated with driving too... where do you stop?

I used to spar MMA style once a week on friday mornings, and my bosses had no problem letting me leave for a couple hours to go do it. It could have been considered a dangerous excersize, but in reality, I have never been fitter and in better shape than I was back then. That led to greater productivity in the workplace, etc. I think that productivity and health tend to go hand in hand in a lot of scenarios.

I also think that maybe now I'm just rambling.