So bob, I heard that the company you work at said that masturbation was bringing down employee production. So, are YOU going to give up masturbating? Just because you don\’t smoke doesn\’t mean that this will escalate into many different areas.
Ok – With all of the illegal or immoral activities going on in today\’s society, don\’t you non-smokers have a bigger concern than people smoking? Time to get off your soap-box people. I hope this man WINS his lawsuit! How ridiculous!!!!
I beleive that if people want to kill themselves by smoking then that is their choice. What they do at home is their own business. But I don\’t think it is fair for the employer to have to pay for their health bills. If people make the choice to smoke they should pay thier own health costs.
Jay, your argument does not hold water. What about the fat people? Should they pay their own health insurance too? Who will determine when you reach \”fat\” level? Or what about the guy who jogs on busy streets and sucks in all the Co2? Should we pay his health insurance since he is clogging his lungs with car pollution. What about the women who go out and drink and then go home with a different guy each weekend? That is risky behaviour too. So, please tell me where do you draw the line?
My employer doesn\’t pay any of my health care bills. I haven\’t heard of any company (aside from those which are self-insured) that does. Do you mean health insurance, Jay?
One might assume that if the employee is honest, then he disclosed the fact that he smokes to the provider and is therefore paying a higher premium to off-set the costs of whatever treatments he receives.
As far as privacy, where does the line get drawn?
Should my employer have the right to test me for alcohol, too? What about prescription meds? Should employers be allowed to test for particular types and reject employees who take them?
Boy, I got some responses, didn\’t I. So we all believe in freedom of choice! As the employer, which I am, and as the payor of the health insurance, which I am, then in a free, capitalist society I should be free to hire whom I choose.
And I choose not to hire smokers. It\’s my choice in a free society, right?
And 400,000 dead smokers every year have made choices, too, haven\’t they?
As an employer you are free to act as you wish, Bob, as long as it is within the scope of laws in your state.
Your ethics are a matter of your personal choice, too. I don\’t think anyone is trying to argue that it isn\’t your choice.
If you don\’t want to hire smokers, then by all means, don\’t.
The problem with this particular situation is… it apparently was not made clear to the smoker that his employment was conditional upon a urine test for nicotine. In most cases, employers are required to make the conditions of employment known upon or before hiring. Depends on if it\’s an employment-at-will state.
Let\’s say you\’re a member of Oprah\’s book club and you read on your own personal time. The company for which you work decides that the book choices are junk. Your car is searched the next week and one of your Oprah books is discovered. You\’re then fired. The firing was questionably legal, and it was unethical.
Now to put the shoe on the other foot. If the company told you *before* you were hired that Oprah books were prohibited and employment was conditional upon compliance with such policy. Then you chose to violate the policy, got caught and subsequently fired. That would at least be ethical.
Personally, I want to be able to choose whether I work for a company that crawls all up in my private business and I want to know whether they intend to do so BEFORE I accept the job.
HE SMOKED, IS FAT & UNATTRACTIVE. THATS THE REAL REASON — ALL COMPLETELY VALID REASONS FOR TERMINATION RIGHT EVERYBODY??
SCOTTS CO — GET READY TO SHELL OUT SOME $$ YOU DUMB ASSES !!!
Studies have shown that obese, fat people can cost companies more for health care costs than smokers. So Scott\’s should fire people that are above the recommended weights for their age and height?
How about people that have very high cholesterol levels?
Show them the door!!
Diabetes, out the door you go too!!
A lot of these are caused by what people eat or don’t eat, exercise or lack of, etc.
So fire them all, their going to raise health care costs for Scotts. Get rid of them
The hypocrisy of Scott\’s, is that they have products, fertilizers, weed killers, etc, that do much damage to the environment, lakes, ponds, rivers, waterways, etc.
There are complete dead zone waters that are in most part caused by runoffs of Scott\’s and other manufacturers products.
Also their advertising, to get rid of weeds and dandelions so you can have a nice looking lawn,
is just trying to hook you into buying their products. Who cares if there is a weed or two?
What else are you killing by applying that stuff to your lawn.
Would you apply these weed killers and then put your baby on the lawn to play?
Besides, there are so many other natural and safe ways to boost your lawn\’s health and appearance than resorting to Scotts chemicals
And their number one threat to your lawn, the Dandelion is a very nutritional plant.
The greens are high in vitamin A in the form of antioxidant carotenoid and vitamin C
Dandelion greens are more nutritious than spinach.
Good points
No cholesterol
Low in saturated fat
Very high in calcium, dietary fiber, iron , manganese, potassium, riboflavin
thiamin, vitamin A , vitamin B6, vitamin E
High in magnesium and phosphorus
Dandelion root contains inulin, which lowers blood sugar in diabetics.
I have been eating them all my life.
We grow the big leafy Italian variety in our garden and pick them in the spring from areas we know are not sprayed, stem them, put some olive oil on them with a slight squeeze of fresh lemon!
So if I worked for Scott\’s, they would probably fire me because I eat the very thing they are trying to destroy.
HaHaHa
This is unbelievable and grossly unfair. If a company wants to have a policy which states that you cannot smoke while on their private grounds, that is their right. But if the company says that you cannot consume nicotine at all? That is just ridiculous. What\’s next? Caffeine? It affects your body in the same ways nicotine does but you never hear about it being banned. The anti smoking campaign in this country is taking away the rights this country was (supposedly) founded on. The right to do as you wish, so long as you dont hurt others.
I simply won\’t purchase any Scott Lawn products. That is my response. If you don\’t want \”my kind\”, you don\’t need my business.
As a Southern woman who owns 7 manicured acres that probably won\’t make an impact on the company or even the Home Depot I buy their products from but I will know by my financial boycott and by encouraging others who smoke to boycott their products…and that\’s sufficient for me.
Yo Jay, so don\’t hire smokers, that\’s your choice. But I bet you don\’t wish others the same freedom, do ya? I guess some rights only apply to some people.
Think about it, maybe medical costs keep going up because all of the \”healthy lifestyle\” people keep falling on treadmills, pull muscles lifting weights, eat too much fiber, drink all those health food drinks (with who knows what chemicals added) and then spend days and days in the doctor\’s office wondering why their pipes aren\’t working right.
So Jay, light up and loosen up!
I hope this man wins his lawsuit and I\’d contribute to the legal fund.
Should a smoker be able to work around all those flamable chemicals!! Hell no. I think this is a great decision. And any smoker who says he never smokes on the job or during breaks or lunch is a liar.
Someone earlier mentioned not being to masterbate at work. I think thats a poor comparison to smoking. I was actually caught masterbating by a co-worker earlier in my carear in the unisex bathroom and was not disiplined. I should have locked the door, yes, but it was still in a private area. In fact I even later went out on a date with the lady who walked in on me, apparently she liked what she saw.
I am a person who smokes. However, I do not smoke at work out of respect for my fellow employees who do not wish to smell the smoke on my clothes etc. Many people have the self control to choose when they smoke, and many people choose NOT to smoke at work and reserve that right for their private lives.
I agree with Smoker with a choice, I will ban Scott\’s products from here on out!
What is next? Big Brother? Will we not be able to drink alcohol at home? or eat Chocolate. What about overweight folks, will they be forced to lose weigt or lose their job.
This may as well be China or Iran.
John is right. Being overweight constitutes a health risk and drives up health insurance premiums. So does people with genetic predispositions for certain diseases, once these diseases manifest themselves. Wait until a company decides not to hire overweight people and starts screening people for genetic predipositions and refuses employment to them, all to save on Health Care costs. A viable business decision, No? Do we really want to open this Pandora\’s box?
Look, I agree with this being a slippery slope. However, the company clearly implemented a policy banning users of nicotine-not using nicotine on the job. This guy obviously signed something or otherwise affirmed that he wasn\’t using nicotine and he lied. Now he got caught and it\’s an invasion of his privacy. Because of liars like him, the company has to verify if they\’re being told the truth. Smokers/users of nicotine are not a protected class so you can fire \’em if you want to. It would be a whole heck of a lot smarter just to charge him a higher premium and get on with it, but the company has the right to do what they did. Comparing smoking to eating chocolate is stupid. Comparing it to obesity is certainly a better comparison and does beg the question where does this end, but at some point I\’d think obesity becomes a covered medical condition under ADA-\”smoking\” isn\’t.
I\’m with BJH!!!! this VERY thing has just happened here in the Tampa area with a very LARGE Insurance Retailer. I happened to be working there when they instituted this ridiculous rule. I was lucky enough to find other employment immediately. This will not stop w/ just smoking! most cetainly you can bet if you\’re overwheight, pre diabetic, have high blood pressure, aren\’t the right religion or member of the CEO\’s political affiliation you\’ll be fired as well-I hope this guy wins as well on just principle alone – I also will not be purchasing Miracle Grow products-
Non-smokers have no qualms about denying rights to smokers even in their own homes, but wait until their rights are subordinated by a company wishing to lower insurance premiums.
Overweight? Have high blood pressure? Any other medical condition? Scott\’s can choose to deny employment to you as well for the same reason.
The issue isn\’t whether Scott\’s is legally entitled to do so when it is a precondition of employment, but whether behavior that is otherwise legal can be a reason to be denied employment.
To \”cut the crap\” -Sure comparing smoking to eating chocolate is stupid, one is physically addicting and the other isn\’t.
I also agree that it is hypocritical of Scott\’s to promote \’healthy lifestyles\’ when they manufacture and distribute products that are harmful to the environment.
Maybe it\’s time to start a \”grass roots\” campaign to boycott Scott\’s-Miracle Gro\” products.
Come on, I\’m waiting for all you smokers to log on in favor of this lawsuit.
But I say great for the company that fired him – – -. I sure hope they prevail.
So bob, I heard that the company you work at said that masturbation was bringing down employee production. So, are YOU going to give up masturbating? Just because you don\’t smoke doesn\’t mean that this will escalate into many different areas.
Ok – With all of the illegal or immoral activities going on in today\’s society, don\’t you non-smokers have a bigger concern than people smoking? Time to get off your soap-box people. I hope this man WINS his lawsuit! How ridiculous!!!!
Regardless of if you smoke, how much of your private life do you think your employer should be allowed to access?
Would any of you want to work for a company that tried to dictate your legal activities off-the-clock?
Things like this scare me… in a Big Brother sort of way.
Right on KLS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Very scary!
I beleive that if people want to kill themselves by smoking then that is their choice. What they do at home is their own business. But I don\’t think it is fair for the employer to have to pay for their health bills. If people make the choice to smoke they should pay thier own health costs.
Jay, your argument does not hold water. What about the fat people? Should they pay their own health insurance too? Who will determine when you reach \”fat\” level? Or what about the guy who jogs on busy streets and sucks in all the Co2? Should we pay his health insurance since he is clogging his lungs with car pollution. What about the women who go out and drink and then go home with a different guy each weekend? That is risky behaviour too. So, please tell me where do you draw the line?
My employer doesn\’t pay any of my health care bills. I haven\’t heard of any company (aside from those which are self-insured) that does. Do you mean health insurance, Jay?
One might assume that if the employee is honest, then he disclosed the fact that he smokes to the provider and is therefore paying a higher premium to off-set the costs of whatever treatments he receives.
As far as privacy, where does the line get drawn?
Should my employer have the right to test me for alcohol, too? What about prescription meds? Should employers be allowed to test for particular types and reject employees who take them?
Boy, I got some responses, didn\’t I. So we all believe in freedom of choice! As the employer, which I am, and as the payor of the health insurance, which I am, then in a free, capitalist society I should be free to hire whom I choose.
And I choose not to hire smokers. It\’s my choice in a free society, right?
And 400,000 dead smokers every year have made choices, too, haven\’t they?
As an employer you are free to act as you wish, Bob, as long as it is within the scope of laws in your state.
Your ethics are a matter of your personal choice, too. I don\’t think anyone is trying to argue that it isn\’t your choice.
If you don\’t want to hire smokers, then by all means, don\’t.
The problem with this particular situation is… it apparently was not made clear to the smoker that his employment was conditional upon a urine test for nicotine. In most cases, employers are required to make the conditions of employment known upon or before hiring. Depends on if it\’s an employment-at-will state.
Let\’s say you\’re a member of Oprah\’s book club and you read on your own personal time. The company for which you work decides that the book choices are junk. Your car is searched the next week and one of your Oprah books is discovered. You\’re then fired. The firing was questionably legal, and it was unethical.
Now to put the shoe on the other foot. If the company told you *before* you were hired that Oprah books were prohibited and employment was conditional upon compliance with such policy. Then you chose to violate the policy, got caught and subsequently fired. That would at least be ethical.
Personally, I want to be able to choose whether I work for a company that crawls all up in my private business and I want to know whether they intend to do so BEFORE I accept the job.
HE SMOKED, IS FAT & UNATTRACTIVE. THATS THE REAL REASON — ALL COMPLETELY VALID REASONS FOR TERMINATION RIGHT EVERYBODY??
SCOTTS CO — GET READY TO SHELL OUT SOME $$ YOU DUMB ASSES !!!
Studies have shown that obese, fat people can cost companies more for health care costs than smokers. So Scott\’s should fire people that are above the recommended weights for their age and height?
How about people that have very high cholesterol levels?
Show them the door!!
Diabetes, out the door you go too!!
A lot of these are caused by what people eat or don’t eat, exercise or lack of, etc.
So fire them all, their going to raise health care costs for Scotts. Get rid of them
The hypocrisy of Scott\’s, is that they have products, fertilizers, weed killers, etc, that do much damage to the environment, lakes, ponds, rivers, waterways, etc.
There are complete dead zone waters that are in most part caused by runoffs of Scott\’s and other manufacturers products.
Also their advertising, to get rid of weeds and dandelions so you can have a nice looking lawn,
is just trying to hook you into buying their products. Who cares if there is a weed or two?
What else are you killing by applying that stuff to your lawn.
Would you apply these weed killers and then put your baby on the lawn to play?
Besides, there are so many other natural and safe ways to boost your lawn\’s health and appearance than resorting to Scotts chemicals
And their number one threat to your lawn, the Dandelion is a very nutritional plant.
The greens are high in vitamin A in the form of antioxidant carotenoid and vitamin C
Dandelion greens are more nutritious than spinach.
Good points
No cholesterol
Low in saturated fat
Very high in calcium, dietary fiber, iron , manganese, potassium, riboflavin
thiamin, vitamin A , vitamin B6, vitamin E
High in magnesium and phosphorus
Dandelion root contains inulin, which lowers blood sugar in diabetics.
I have been eating them all my life.
We grow the big leafy Italian variety in our garden and pick them in the spring from areas we know are not sprayed, stem them, put some olive oil on them with a slight squeeze of fresh lemon!
So if I worked for Scott\’s, they would probably fire me because I eat the very thing they are trying to destroy.
HaHaHa
Bottom Line, Scotts is totally hypocritical
This is unbelievable and grossly unfair. If a company wants to have a policy which states that you cannot smoke while on their private grounds, that is their right. But if the company says that you cannot consume nicotine at all? That is just ridiculous. What\’s next? Caffeine? It affects your body in the same ways nicotine does but you never hear about it being banned. The anti smoking campaign in this country is taking away the rights this country was (supposedly) founded on. The right to do as you wish, so long as you dont hurt others.
I simply won\’t purchase any Scott Lawn products. That is my response. If you don\’t want \”my kind\”, you don\’t need my business.
As a Southern woman who owns 7 manicured acres that probably won\’t make an impact on the company or even the Home Depot I buy their products from but I will know by my financial boycott and by encouraging others who smoke to boycott their products…and that\’s sufficient for me.
Yo Jay, so don\’t hire smokers, that\’s your choice. But I bet you don\’t wish others the same freedom, do ya? I guess some rights only apply to some people.
Think about it, maybe medical costs keep going up because all of the \”healthy lifestyle\” people keep falling on treadmills, pull muscles lifting weights, eat too much fiber, drink all those health food drinks (with who knows what chemicals added) and then spend days and days in the doctor\’s office wondering why their pipes aren\’t working right.
So Jay, light up and loosen up!
I hope this man wins his lawsuit and I\’d contribute to the legal fund.
Should a smoker be able to work around all those flamable chemicals!! Hell no. I think this is a great decision. And any smoker who says he never smokes on the job or during breaks or lunch is a liar.
Someone earlier mentioned not being to masterbate at work. I think thats a poor comparison to smoking. I was actually caught masterbating by a co-worker earlier in my carear in the unisex bathroom and was not disiplined. I should have locked the door, yes, but it was still in a private area. In fact I even later went out on a date with the lady who walked in on me, apparently she liked what she saw.
I am a person who smokes. However, I do not smoke at work out of respect for my fellow employees who do not wish to smell the smoke on my clothes etc. Many people have the self control to choose when they smoke, and many people choose NOT to smoke at work and reserve that right for their private lives.
I agree with Smoker with a choice, I will ban Scott\’s products from here on out!
What is next? Big Brother? Will we not be able to drink alcohol at home? or eat Chocolate. What about overweight folks, will they be forced to lose weigt or lose their job.
This may as well be China or Iran.
John is right. Being overweight constitutes a health risk and drives up health insurance premiums. So does people with genetic predispositions for certain diseases, once these diseases manifest themselves. Wait until a company decides not to hire overweight people and starts screening people for genetic predipositions and refuses employment to them, all to save on Health Care costs. A viable business decision, No? Do we really want to open this Pandora\’s box?
Look, I agree with this being a slippery slope. However, the company clearly implemented a policy banning users of nicotine-not using nicotine on the job. This guy obviously signed something or otherwise affirmed that he wasn\’t using nicotine and he lied. Now he got caught and it\’s an invasion of his privacy. Because of liars like him, the company has to verify if they\’re being told the truth. Smokers/users of nicotine are not a protected class so you can fire \’em if you want to. It would be a whole heck of a lot smarter just to charge him a higher premium and get on with it, but the company has the right to do what they did. Comparing smoking to eating chocolate is stupid. Comparing it to obesity is certainly a better comparison and does beg the question where does this end, but at some point I\’d think obesity becomes a covered medical condition under ADA-\”smoking\” isn\’t.
I\’m with BJH!!!! this VERY thing has just happened here in the Tampa area with a very LARGE Insurance Retailer. I happened to be working there when they instituted this ridiculous rule. I was lucky enough to find other employment immediately. This will not stop w/ just smoking! most cetainly you can bet if you\’re overwheight, pre diabetic, have high blood pressure, aren\’t the right religion or member of the CEO\’s political affiliation you\’ll be fired as well-I hope this guy wins as well on just principle alone – I also will not be purchasing Miracle Grow products-
Non-smokers have no qualms about denying rights to smokers even in their own homes, but wait until their rights are subordinated by a company wishing to lower insurance premiums.
Overweight? Have high blood pressure? Any other medical condition? Scott\’s can choose to deny employment to you as well for the same reason.
The issue isn\’t whether Scott\’s is legally entitled to do so when it is a precondition of employment, but whether behavior that is otherwise legal can be a reason to be denied employment.
To \”cut the crap\” -Sure comparing smoking to eating chocolate is stupid, one is physically addicting and the other isn\’t.
I also agree that it is hypocritical of Scott\’s to promote \’healthy lifestyles\’ when they manufacture and distribute products that are harmful to the environment.
Maybe it\’s time to start a \”grass roots\” campaign to boycott Scott\’s-Miracle Gro\” products.