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 ...
Agreed. But this action by Scotts is not government intervention, while any court action to stop it would be.
you understand that next year they will give you until October to loose that extra 20lbs or they will fire you?
that's what happened here in michigan, also an at will state.
enjoy
:)
If you really have a problem with a policy like this, and feel the government should get involved, then pass a law banning companies from regulating employees' activites in their off-time. But such a law would be yet another restriction on business and the free market, something conservatives tend to oppose.
When you make an EMPLOYER responsible for your health care...that's what you get. If you have an account you CONTROL it's another matter.
How much worse will it be when the government takes responsibility for our health care?
I didn't pass a law banning activities off time....Scotts did. I could care less what people do off time. It is what they do at work that counts. Maybe you are starting to see the problem!
Scotts passed no law, and you are free to ignore their rule as long as you don't take a paycheck from them. There is no need for government to get involved.
You get it. If we have our own health accounts, which we control, we have influence on the marketplace.
By being stupid enough to can this guy for smoking at home, they have invited the law. He sued....or did you not read the article.
Their right to ban smoking on the premises is justified. To take that into our homes is debatable.
No they didn't. Scotts can't pass laws. Scott's has every right to make their own hiring/firing decisions, as long as they're consistent and they don't violate the exising federal/state laws.
I could care less what people do off time.
That's your decision to make as an employer, not as an employee.
It is what they do at work that counts. Maybe you are starting to see the problem!
You're advocating the SCUTUS passing laws restricting my hiring decisions outside of the existing protected classes? That's economic suicide. When the courts start deciding how I make my hiring decisions, whether I like smokers or not, it's going to be the end of capitalism, and America.
Scott is the one giving an employee the opportunity to file suit. Had they not fired him for smoking off duty....there would be no suit.
I don't like government interfering in buisness either, but sometimes we need to be wise enough to prevent it.
it won't be 50lbs over wieght, it will be 20 or less, at least that's what they are doing at a company here in okemos, mi.
get to your proper wieght or you're gone.
so all you folks out there who have had a hard time losing wieght better realize your job may soon depend on it
:)
You've never heard of a frivolous lawsuit? Just because a plaintiff files a lawsuit, doesn't mean the plaintiff wins.
I don't like government interfering in buisness either, but sometimes we need to be wise enough to prevent it.
How about our legislators being wise enough to enact laws that levy punitive damages for frivolous lawsuits?
get to your proper wieght or you're gone.
so all you folks out there who have had a hard time losing wieght better realize your job may soon depend on it
Let's assume that company in Okemos goes to the extreme, and says you have to be within 5lbs of ideal bodyweight, according to the most restrictive weight policies imaginible. How long do you suppose they stay in business, considering the reduced labor pool (there's only so many skinny people) and the poor public relations (Drudge headlines)?
So I guess, you as an employer will worry about what I eat at home also, who I socialize with, etc. My health problems could cost you big time. Will you pass rules against it or will it just stay with cigarettes?
Something I never thought I'd see:
http://www.wral.com/news/10426670/detail.html
Employers, as a rule of thumb, will make hiring decisions based on the profitability (short- and long-term) of their decisions. If I decide I'm only going to hire people who have a life expectancy of 90 years (according to FDA recommendations, drug use, smoking habits, drinking habits, marital status, and dietary habits), then I'm drastically reducing my potential for profit. *Most* employers are smarter than that. Some are not. Those who are not, fail to stay in business. If you don't like the rules, start your own company and make your own rules. Until then, stop complaining about the rules.
Will you pass rules against it or will it just stay with cigarettes?
I'll stay with cigarettes as long as I want. If I decide I'm going to fire all my smokers, even the ones who make me money, then I make that decision at my own peril. Frankly, I'm all for keeping profitable employees, no matter what they choose to do in their free time.
You're mistaking my argument. I'm not supportive of Scott's policy. I'm supportive of their right to create their own policy, and against the government intervening in their right to form their own policy.
We damned well can't even bother to get out an vote for our political leaders as a nation, but we can sure as hell fire, ban smoking. That is one thing people can get excited about for sure!
People can't even see where this is heading.
I salute you for that!
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.