Skip to comments.
Company demands workers give up smoking to keep jobs
AP ^
| 12/10/5
Posted on 12/10/2005 1:40:02 PM PST by Crackingham
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 221-239 next last
To: Crackingham
Gays have higher healthcosts, too. I wonder if they will make the homofaggots go straight to lower costs.
2
posted on
12/10/2005 1:42:12 PM PST
by
Fierce Allegiance
(I will prevail. I miss my best friend.)
To: Fierce Allegiance
So do obese people, will they be forced to trim down or be fired also?
To: Crackingham
Why stop there? Why not fire an employee who Scott's feel is obese or drinks too much, doesn't exercise enough etc...
4
posted on
12/10/2005 1:44:48 PM PST
by
Man50D
To: Crackingham
Far as I can see- they're a private company. They should be able to hire and fire as they wish. If they don't want smokers, that's their business.
I will have to find a new fertilizer now.
James Hagedorn is my 1st choice.
To: Fierce Allegiance
The company hasn't figure (sic) out how it will determine whether employees are in compliance, spokesman Jim King said. Whichever side you fall on this, I would immediately fire anyone who put this policy into place without thinking it through. That's just horrible business practice!!
I can't even imagine that they would have a meeting approving this policy without asking, "Okay, how do we implement this?"
7
posted on
12/10/2005 1:46:34 PM PST
by
paulat
To: Crackingham
Maybe they should require their workers to give up being fat, too. Or down the list of other health considerations....
8
posted on
12/10/2005 1:46:34 PM PST
by
Dog Gone
To: Crackingham
3 packs a day
I quit cold-turkey 3 years ago.
but it was MY decision and though I wish everyone would quit, It' sure isn't my place to force anyone to.
And yes, my health has improved vastly.
9
posted on
12/10/2005 1:48:19 PM PST
by
digger48
To: Man50D
Lets not overlook elderly people, clearly their health costs are higher.
To: Crackingham
Is that legal? What about diabetics, or if you get breast cancer? Those are big ticket insurance costs. How about gay employees? Do they have to quit being gay? Blacks and Hispanics tend to have a higher rate of diabetes, than whites. What are they going to do about those employees?
I believe I won't purchase Scott's products in the future.
11
posted on
12/10/2005 1:48:38 PM PST
by
TheSpottedOwl
("The Less You Have...The More They'll Take"- bf)
To: Crackingham
I landed in Burbank on Thursday and the stewardess said on the overhead "please refrain from smoking until you are in a designated smoking area". I silently wondered to myself if the designated area she referred to was Nevada.
The right to smoke doesn't exist and employers have the right to hire or not to hire anyone in my book. I love tobacco, btw, and enjoy a good Romeo and Julieta maduro reserve from time to time.
12
posted on
12/10/2005 1:49:02 PM PST
by
kerryusama04
(The Bill of Rights is not occupation specific.)
To: kerryusama04
The right to smoke doesn't exist
There is no right to eat beef
There is no right to drink alcohol
There is no right to consume sugar
There is no right to laugh at a joke
There is no right to play baseball
There is no right to sleep in the afternoon
Get it yet??????
13
posted on
12/10/2005 1:53:04 PM PST
by
motzman
To: Crackingham
Oh boy.
What about people who work there, smoke, but have insurance through their spouses employer?
Or what about people who work there, don't smoke, but the spouses do?
What about family coverage where a teenager smokes without permission? Fire the Dad or Mom?
Can of worms people. Keep the powers that be out of our lives, or next they'll come for you.
BTW, my wife and I quit smoking in 1988, in case any wonders.
On 2nd thought being elderly isnt a choice, smoking is.
They can do what they want as a private company but their gains by not having smokers will be off set by smokers who no longer bye their product.
*Being gay is a choice and should be included.
To: Prodigal Son
You're correct, they are a private company that is making a political statement........
As a private individual, you can choose what private companies you do business with.....
Besides, there is a strong argument that this company is attempting to control their employees lives beyond the scope of their employment. These employees compensation, or advancement is not being judged on how they perform, but what legal activities they do on their off time.
This runs in the face of the concept of freedom and rugged individualism that made this country great.
16
posted on
12/10/2005 1:53:53 PM PST
by
nevergore
(“It could be that the purpose of my life is simply to serve as a warning to others.”)
To: paulat
I can't even imagine that they would have a meeting approving this policy without asking, "Okay, how do we implement this?"The wonders of mob group-think mentality. Now sweeping a nation near you.
To: No Blue States
Lets not overlook elderly people, clearly their health costs are higher.
You're absolutely right! How could I be so foolish to overlook that one. After all the elderly don't contribute to society. Come to think of it, all human beings are imperfect so they might as well be replaced with robots.
18
posted on
12/10/2005 1:55:52 PM PST
by
Man50D
To: Fierce Allegiance
Gays have higher healthcosts, too. True
19
posted on
12/10/2005 1:57:04 PM PST
by
A. Pole
("Truth at first is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed and then it is accepted as self evident.")
To: All
So, where willit end?
I suppose that firearm owners have higher health costs also? Care to have everyone turn in their guns?
Rock climbers have higher healthcare costs. Get rid of them.
Oh, and how people vote has adirect result on the financial health of a company. Want to work here? Vote my way.
This crap has got to end. Time to write the President and CEO of Scotts and tell them why I will refuse to purchase any of their products.
Do they sponsor any sports? Because I will write to anyone who supports Scotts.
Oh, as full disclosure: Lifetime non-smoker whose father died of lung cancer. I am against this since what an employee doesin his/her off time is not the employers business unless that activity compromises one's ability to do the job.
20
posted on
12/10/2005 1:58:32 PM PST
by
ace2u_in_MD
(You missed something...)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 221-239 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson