Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: NEPA
>> they should be able to hire and fire anyone they want to within reason.

This appears to an egregious violation of his rights especially if the plaintiff is not in violation of any law. The Scotts Company should get hammered on this. I find your interpretation of 'within reason' to be whimsical.

Do you feel it's justifiable to test for AIDS? What's your opinion on traces of other carcinogens such as those found in paint thinners, or other household solvents and materials. Did you ever consider second hand smoke as a factor?
50 posted on 11/29/2006 4:13:41 PM PST by Gene Eric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: Gene Eric
his appears to an egregious violation of his rights especially if the plaintiff is not in violation of any law.

It has nothing to do with the law. It has to do with an "at will" employment contract. The employee and employer have the right to terminate employment for any reason or no reason. In this case, the company made a no smoking policy and set a "drop dead" date for compliance. They provided a means to comply. This employee chose not to comply. He violated his employee contract. The company is completely within their contractual rights.

I work with an "at will" contract. It's been that way for 30 years. Both states where I've been employed are also "right to work" states. I can't be forced to join a union as a prerequisite to be employed. Freedom and responsibility. I'm not obligated to remain with my employer if I choose to leave either. Some people "owe" the company for "training". They aren't free to leave without compensating the company or "working it off". That was a common occurrence for employees of Electronic Data Systems.

112 posted on 11/29/2006 5:35:12 PM PST by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

To: Gene Eric; Arkinsaw; Normal4me
The policy was vetted by the legal eagles before it was announced. It isn't legal in every state and is only in effect in the states in which it is legal.

I doubt that the guy suing will get very far. Mass law must allow the policy or it wouldn't have been implemented there.

Again, keep in mind this guy had 1 year notice and the offer to pay for any program he wanted to help him quit.

I don't like the policy even though it doesn't affect me. But in most states it is legal.

154 posted on 11/29/2006 10:43:55 PM PST by NEPA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson