Mass. smoker sues over firing

Boston.com ^ | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 | Sacha Pfeiffer

[GQuagmire]

A Buzzards Bay man has filed a civil rights lawsuit against The Scotts Company, the lawn care giant, which fired him after a drug test showed nicotine in his urine, putting him in violation of a company policy forbidding employees to smoke on or off the job

[T.L.Sink]

We all know that smoking can be injurious to one's health and that "second hand" smoke can be very annoying. BUT -- let's get real: The reality is that smoking is NOT an illegal activity. To smoke in a permitted area should not be criminalized!


The unpleasant reality is that all smoking everywhere has not been made illegal because the phony state governments LOVE THAT TAX REVENUE!!

[Dov in Houston]

Who is Scotts ?

Firm believer in Miracle Gro products here !

[William Terrell]

Ordinarily, I would agree with you.

From what I understand the master/servant relationship and the common law that defines it is still active to define the privileges and responsibilities of both sides even though the sides have been renamed employer/employee (USSC). A master's jurisdiction of his hired servant ends with the work day, or other period of time between at work and at private life.

'Course modifying statutes would be effective, but I don't think, if some statute allowed the master to mitigate his CHOICE to provide the servant health care, it could possibly extend to health impacting actions on off time hours.

If one thing in private life can be regulated by pinkslip coercion based on financial impact on the master, any thing that impacts health can be, too, like the servant's relationship with their wife or husband. I don't think we want to go there.

If the company prevails in this case, there's a good chance you're going to be shocked at what you see follow.

[magslinger]

Forget about firing vegans because the neo-lib MSM wants you to believe a vegan diet, and ONLY a vegan diet, is "healthy" and "natural". Fire a vegan worker for being a vegan, and you will have MSM and PETA all over your ass.

Exactly why I suggested it. My purpose in suggesting liberal sanctioned self harming behavior for similar treatment was to work up the libs.
A vegan diet is, of course, unhealthy and unnatural. It is insanely difficult to create a balanced diet for humans without using animal products. The only known animal that will pass up a nice bite of meat is given a chance is Homo herbivorus.

[sergeantdave]

As a gentleman, consider your honor and reputation upon running an inexperienced woman through with your sword. Besides, her seconds would show up with M-60s.

[IronJack]

Employers own the business.

But they only RENT the employees.

[sergeantdave]

"Has our renewed freedom been exercised?"

Not yet but it's an option. And it's not a freedom, it's a potential target.

[highimpact]

If one thing in private life can be regulated by pinkslip coercion based on financial impact on the master, any thing that impacts health can be, too, like the servant's relationship with their wife or husband. I don't think we want to go there.

I follow your logic, but there's a bigger picture. Entrepreneurs go into business to make money. To make money, entrepreneurs have to employ people who provide value to the company, i.e., a positive return on their investment. If an employer chooses to limit their applicant pool to such an extent that they eliminate the most productive employees, based on immaterial criteria such as marital health, then they are chopping off their nose to spite their face.

Business decisions are primarily (almost exclusively) based on profit, whether on a strategic or tactical level. No successful company is going to winnow down their employment candidate pool to such an extent that they hurt the bottom line. That's the bottom line.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Should they be required to continue to work for an employer after, say, they receive expensive training?

Yes. In fact most companies have in their handbook that if you receive employer paid for training and you quit before a certain amount of time has passed you are responsible to repay the company for what they have laid out.

Employers own the business, and should be allowed to do with it what they please.

And I should never disapprove or say that something is not right?

Once again note that I never said it was illegal. Nor did I say that it should be. I am saying that it is not right and is a sign of a poor corporate culture which, if not corrected, will ultimately lead to the company losing business.

Your apparent belief that as long as it is legal that no one should disapprove and state their disapproval is part and parcel of where new and restrictive laws come from.

By the way, the employer James Hagedorn, does not own the business. He is an employee of the stockholders in Scott's Worldwide.

[TankerKC]

...a gay smoker...

Is that what you call on old gay flamer?

[Fierce Allegiance]

The federal law poster regarding hiring practices, minimum wages, etc says people can't be discriminated on based on sexual orientation.

Also, gays can be expelled from the military.

That covers it, I'd say.

[NCLaw441]

But they only RENT the employees.
***

And the employees can terminate the lease, if they like.

[NCLaw441]

I disagree with your description of my position. I have no problem with posters on FR stating their opinions of employer policies, or with the employees doing the same. For the record, I don't agree with the employer policy concerning after hours smoking, I just support the right of the employer to have such a policy. My basis for that support is the reciprocal right of the employee to quit for a bad reason if that employee wishes to do so.

[MaxMax]

Most people have no idea where these (laws) they allow will lead us.

[danmar]

So, on the same premise as firing a smoker....shouldn't it be legal to fire someone who is HIV-positive?

Exactly ;... what about if your cholesterol is out of whack (drop the bacon and eggs, otherwise you will loose your job), the bier gut is way too big (better drop the brewskies or you can kiss your job good bye). It looks to me that slowly but surely we are marching towards an Orwellian society. One little step at the time...nobody pays attention...nobody get's hurt...

[danmar]

The best he can hope for is to catch that SOB metrosexual owner of Scotts in Michigan where dueling is now legal.

Or maybe a black alley with no witnesses...

[danmar]

It is a short step from prohibiting behavior on the basis of health care costs...to requiring behavior on the basis of health care costs.

If the employer pays 100% for your Health Care, everything included, than maybe they can set down some rules of healthy living so to speak.
If you are required to pay co-payments the deal is off, period! IMHO!

[highimpact]

Awesome post.

[William Terrell]

That depends on the labor market. If there more people looking for jobs than there are jobs, masters can pretty much impose any restriction that the servants will stand. And if a servant has to support a family, he will take a lot more than he would ordinarily. So precedents are built.

We have a glutted labor pool. This is evident in the current average wage paid versus previous wage paid in a given market, and also acknowledged by many analysts. Workers will need their jobs and will endure anything short of not being able to look at themselves in the mirror shaving.

So has the abuse threshold gone with people in history, from what I've read.

I'd be more than happy if you could talk me out of that dark prophecy. "We're America. It can't happen to us." can't be valid with the massive changes to the original founding structure made during the 10th and 20th centuries, I'll warrant.

[highimpact]

That depends on the labor market. If there more people looking for jobs than there are jobs, masters can pretty much impose any restriction that the servants will stand.

The current unemployment rate is sub-5%. Any worker with a valued skill can find work, and in a lot of cases, be selective of their employers. If you don't make enough money, or if you're not happy in your current job, find a different employer who values your skills more (or find different skills with more value).

You're blaming the wrong people. Employees have more impact over their own income than employers. If an employer doesn't pay an employee what they're WORTH, the employee will leave to receive a higher wage elsewhere. Employers are going to pay the market rate for an employee's value, for the same reason that you pay the market rate for an oil change.

And if a servant has to support a family, he will take a lot more than he would ordinarily. So precedents are built.

It's all about value. If a "servant" doesn't want to serve, he should open his own business.

We have a glutted labor pool. This is evident in the current average wage paid versus previous wage paid in a given market, and also acknowledged by many analysts.

Real wages are not determined by employers alone. Education, culture, global markets, immigration, inflation, infrastructure, wars, and many other variables determine real wages. Restricting your employment pool to non-smokers, I would argue, is one of the lesser variables.

Workers will need their jobs and will endure anything short of not being able to look at themselves in the mirror shaving.

I won't. I know my value. If somebody tries to pay me minimum wage to shovel SH*T, I'm going to laugh in their face. But you're right, if that's their only value to an employer, that's what they'll get paid. That's not the employer's fault.

So has the abuse threshold gone with people in history, from what I've read. I'd be more than happy if you could talk me out of that dark prophecy. "We're America. It can't happen to us." can't be valid with the massive changes to the original founding structure made during the 10th and 20th centuries, I'll warrant.

We have a (generally) free market, and that economic model has created the greatest, wealthiest, and most luxurious society in the history of the world. Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.