Posted on 11/29/2006 3:01:47 PM PST by 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
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
The next step in the nanny state will be, eating burgers, life style etc. The fat women at work are at major risk for medical problems in the future. Can't you see where this is headed?
No, I'm not missing the point. Nanny-statism has nothing to do with my decision as a private employer to make hiring decisions based on my own preferences, as long as my preferences are not regulated by federal or state law. I can choose to hire you because you are a fat woman, or because you are a skinny woman. Limiting my hiring selection to either category, however, is business suicide.
The government is already regulating your decisions at many levels.
At TOO MANY levels. That's my point.
Then you should be able to see how it will only get worse. Since employers make these stupid decisions to control what a worker does off time, the suits will get government involved and in your face.
Mass. Smoker... is that any relation to a Mass. Murderer?
Why would a company want to ban employees who eat unhealthful food? Presumably, there would be some benefit in lower health care costs, but these would likely be far outweighed by the additional costs the company would incur by reducing its potential labor supply. Thus, it's highly unlikely that any company would attempt such a thing, and if it did, it would probably be at a competitive disadvantage and eventually fail.
Similarly, a company can make a cost-benefit analysis about smoking. Scotts decided that it would probably gain more by banning smoking that it would lose by limiting its labor supply, but it remains to be seen whether this will be true. If not, Scotts will likely realize that the policy is costing it money, and rescind it. If is beneficial, some other companies may emulate it, while most will probably impose a more sensible policy such as requiring smokers to pay slightly higher health insurance costs. Either way, there is no way smokers will become unemployable.
The courts are now going to have to keep this in check. It it smoking at home today, it is burgers and french fries tomorrow....because you will be costing the company money!
Stupid employers don't stay in business. No smart employer will reduce their labor supply to such an extent that the cost of finding profitable labor exceeds the profit.
Did you even read my post? I just explained why it would be ridiculous for a company to regulate consumption of burgers and fries if it were interested in saving money.
If you're willing to pay someone for 24/7 employment, then you get to set the rules in his of hours. We're employees, not freaking slaves.
It's a LEGAL substance like alcohol. You can tell them no smoking on the clock and that's kosher. Telling someone no smoking ever, or no alcohol, or no guns, or no motorcycles ever while they work for you is a no-no.
Think of the precedent that you are setting and then think of ANY habit/hobby you might have that could be used against you.
I really find it hard to believe, how you can't see this suit by an employee, smoking, apparently at home, not impacting everthing your employees do.
If tobacco were a banned substance, I would have no problem. Are burgers and fries banned?
In actuality, it has been proven that diet is far more responsible for a healthy lifestyle than smoking....for a later debate.
This is big time....and I think it will go to SCOTUS.
Your company ... true. Protected by the courts? Are you willing to bet your lifesblood on it?
And even if you do win, piss enough people off and the one guy with a grudge, ability and a good baseball bat or firearm will make your children happy when they inherit.
Sometimes there's the legal thing to do, and the morally right thing to do.
If you ever get round to St. Louis, do get in touch. I'll match you for dinner, and it's entirely accurate to say that I know the best places to eat here, having infested this city (or vice versa) for some 30-odd years. All kinds of fine cuisines available, but NOT San Franciscan if you get m'drift.
FReegards
Put it in front of a jury. With a name like Rodrigues he could say Scotts is anti-immigrant and take them to the cleaners as an example for others to follow.
I read and responded to your post. Apparently you couldn't discern my response.
I guess it is ok to let people get obese on burgers and fries but not let them smoke off duty (a totally legal substance). They can therefore do anything else detrimential to their health, but please don't have a legal cigarette.
I read an article in the 70's from National Geographic. They were looking for common dominators from people in the world who were were 100 years and older. What did these people have in common?
Some still smoked....which should thrill idiot employers. The common theme was 1200 callories a day of low fat foods.
It's a LEGAL substance like alcohol. You can tell them no smoking on the clock and that's kosher. Telling someone no smoking ever, or no alcohol, or no guns, or no motorcycles ever while they work for you is a no-no.
Think of the precedent that you are setting and then think of ANY habit/hobby you might have that could be used against you.
You're just flat out wrong according to the law. Just because something is legal, doesn't mean I can't fire you because you do it. It is legal to discriminate for any reason outside of protected areas, such as age, race, gender, etc. (look for my previous posts to see the full list). If I decide to fire you because you like Heinz Ketchup, then there's nothing you can do about it as an employee. Heinz Ketchup is not a protected class.
The free market determines the value of my decision. Any reasonable employer will not discriminate based on tomato products, because they will eliminate 80% of their employee supply (that stat is a guess, but it's illustrative of my point). This post is about government intervention. At what point do we say our hiring decisions (i.e., my money as your employer) is not my own? This goes to the heart of conservatism. If you, as an employee, don't like your pay, working conditions, uniform, job description, no-smoking policy, etc., then you have five choices to choose from:
1. Quit and find a more suitable job.
2. Quit and start your own company (so you can make the rules).
3. Grin and bear it.
4. Quit and become a homeless bum.
5. Get elected to state or federal office and change the rules.
Those are your choices.
I think they should use the American with Disabilities act defense. You see Scott's is discriminating against a person with a disability. How is this a disability, well you see the Government has deemed Nicotine a drug and classifies it as addictive. Now we have drug addicts collecting disability checks because of their addictions. So because this guy is addicted to Nicotine he should be fired. Wrong, under the Americans with Disabilities Act they aren't suppose to discriminate against people with disabilities, making the company in the wrong.
Now another little foot note that just throws out the private company thing. If I owned a company and it were private, if I were a smoker under the current laws I would not be able to smoke in my own private office. How is this right, its my company and I should able to set the rules. What people don't realize that we need to draw a line about how government will dictate our lives. First they tell us how to raise our kids, so now we have a large group of disrespectful kids, that only care about themselves and not anyone else and thinks the world owes them. Then they go after the smokers, now they are going after trans fats. Enough is enough I don't smoke but I am for the guy and hope he wins a mint. Its all about a stand, the company can stop him from smoking on company time, but he should be free to do as he wishes with his own personal time.
Well enough Said
Bear :-)
You've given reasons why this could be a bad decision by Scotts, but you've failed to give a good reason why the courts need to intervene to stop it.
Because a suit has been filed.
I'm sure she was. Been married 11 years now. She's my kid's mom, business partner, best friend, and my mate. My condolences, truly. If I'm ever going to be in Saint Louey, I'll send you a PM to hook up for some of that good food.
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.