Smoking at home a right

A Michigan health care company overstepped the clear line between work-life and home-life this week when it fired four employees for refusing to submit to a "smoking test" that would determine if the employees were lighting up away from the office. The company, Okemos-based Weyco Inc., instituted a no-smoking policy in 2003, purportedly to save on the cost of health care benefits for its employees. The policy forbids employees from smoking both in the workplace, and at home. Weyco offered help to employees trying to quit and has said that 14 of its estimated 20 employees who smoked kicked the habit before the policy went into effect. Weyco has made an admirable effort to improve the health and lifespan of its employees, but in doing so has violated the personal freedom of its employees to indulge in whatever habits they choose during their off-hours.

As a private company, Weyco is well within its legal right to choose what sort of people it employs. But that does not make its no-smoking policy right. Weyco, or any other company, pays their employees for what they do during working hours and should not try to impose on what they do outside those hours. While there is a precedent for companies that screen for employee drug-use, smoking cigarettes is a legal - albeit unhealthy - habit that does not affect work performance in any way.

Companies can and should restrict what sort of activities employees participate in during work hours, especially if it affects their or other employees' ability to work, but they should not try to restrict what happens when an employee goes home. Lawmakers and activists would be up in arms if companies began requiring their workers to go home and exercise for two hours, eat a low-carb, low-fat, low-sodium meal and go to bed before nine. Nor could companies force employees to refrain from sky-diving, jay-walking or jogging without stretching. The only difference between these bad habits and smoking is the ability to test for them. Just because Weyco can test whether its employees smoke outside the office does not mean they should.Threatening employees with nicotine tests not only violates their right to smoke, but restricts all their daily recreational activities. Will employees have to avoid smoky restaurants and bars for fear of second-hand smoke? Some workers may have to come home to a family that smokes in the house. Will they have to impose Weyco's restrictions on their family as well?

It is no secret that smoking cigarettes will slowly kill you. And perhaps Weyco would be right to charge employees who smoke extra for health care benefits. But they should not make their employment contingent on how employees choose to spend their time outside the house.