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 ...
One of those right things is not to change the rules after the game has begun. Another is not doing what they did to you.
One of the things I have learned over the years is that the corporate culture is at least as important as what you make for building a successful company. The thought process behind this move is troubling.
If I had any funds invested with Scott I would be pulling them about now.
LOLOL!!! I hope you sent that!
An employer should be able to fire someone for what ever decisions they make.
This includes their decision to smoke, dye their hair, drag race or be a homosexual.
Each are choices.
Why is debbie stabenow still breathing?
Nope. I live 20 miles from Scott's world HQ in Ohio. It started in Ohio. We heard about it here over a year ago.
Interesting point. I never thought of that. I guess if I changed that to black hair, I'd be okay. I was just trying to stretch my logic to the absurd to make a point.
The guy should sue the bastids for the large amount of weedkiller chemicals in his urine that they didn't report.
Exactly. What most people making the slippery slope argument here fail to realize is that each additional condition an employer demands reduces the available pool of workers a little more, forcing them to pay more or compromise on other factors. Some companies, like Scotts, may decide not to hire smokers, while others will likely take advantage of the availability of this group of workers and hire them. In a free market, there's no way smoking, or any other minor factor, will prevent someone from finding a job if he has the ability to be productive.
Nailed it.
Oh, no, you can leave all the chains and padlocks on your refrigerator!
The telescreen will be mounted on the wall opposite from your fridge, to afford Big Brother an unobstructed view. A monthly tally of the number of times the fridge door is opened and closed will also be maintained. If the authorized total is exceeded, you will receive a midnight knock on the door from....
People's Food Comrade Richard Simmons!!
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.
Then DUI on caffeine.
Way to put your faith in socialism, sheeple. You have voted for your TOTAL ENSLAVEMENT. It's a sad day when the American slaves from the 1700s/1800s are more American than today's idiot sheeple.
No those things should not weigh in on somebody's employment.
My philosophy is this : Show up to work on time. Give it your best. And if your best isn't good enough, you're fired.
Does the ban include disease carrying pole smokers?
I certainly hope they paid him for 24 hours a day if they were directing his activity 24 hours a day.
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.
I will not buy another Scott's product.
BUMP
You make a valid point. Now, how about employees? Should they be required to continue to work for an employer after, say, they receive expensive training? If an employee disagrees with an employer's political beliefs, should he be required to continue to work for the employer? If a boss takes up smoking (during after work hours only), must all employees continue to work for this boss, or should they be allowed to quit if they don't approve of smoking?
Most people have NO trouble with employees who discriminate. Most people, even conservatives, ignore the property rights aspects of this discussion. Employers own the business, and should be allowed to do with it what they please.
"Any" reason isn't exactly correct, because "certain" reasons (race, religion, etc.) are protected. Otherwise, your post is spot on. You're better off as an employer to give "no" reason for employment termination to protect yourself from federal/state laws.
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.