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 ...
ping
...putting him in violation of a company policy forbidding employees to smoke on or off the job....
-----
Well, just another example of socialism working hard in the Peoples Republic of Mass --- trying to control what a person does when not on the job -- Karl Marx is smiling.
Good for him, I hope he can win!
Condition of employment? That's what contracts are about.
Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns. NRA KMA
Well, just another example of socialism working hard in the Peoples Republic of Mass --- trying to control what a person does when not on the job -- Karl Marx is smiling.
Employers should be greatly concerned about how employees perform their jobs and what happens in the workplace, but how employees want to lead their private lives is their own business," said Boston lawyer Harvey A. Schwartz, who represents Scott Rodrigues in his lawsuit against Scotts, which is based in Marysville, Ohio.
Poor company policy >>>----> Law suit >>>----> Press coverage >>>----> Lost sales among smokers
No mention that non-smokers and other healthy people have to pay higher insurance premiums at work for people like Rodrigues who smoke, or who eat like pigs are therefore weigh 400 pounds.
Where are the FReepers who argue that Massachusetss is an at-will employment state? Scott has the right to hire and fire whom they want to.
And Scott has the responsibility to be fair to all employees who want lower health care costs.
The company announced this policy over a year ago. They gave smokers until Oct 1 of this year to quit. The company offered to pay for any program an employee chose to stop smoking.
I don't smoke and I don't agree with the policy but it is a private company, not government, and they should be able to hire and fire anyone they want to within reason.
I suppose some accounted figured that health insurance for non-smokers is cheaper, or some such thing.
Companies have a right to set their policies, if they are understood from the time of hiring. But this is pretty ridiculous. Reminds me of the employment situation in Kurt Vonnegut's "Player Piano."
Agreed. I am a smoker,if my company made me pay extra because I smoke ,I wouldn't complain.(If the policy were there before I started.)I wonder where the line will be drawn.
That's outrageous. Smoking is not illegal and discriminating against someone for smoking at home is crazy. What you do in your private life that doesn't interfere with your ability to do your job should be no employers business.
So, on the same premise as firing a smoker....shouldn't it be legal to fire someone who is HIV-positive?
Smokers are good for the US treasury. The more they smoke, the less taxes I have to pay.
This could be interesting. He should claim that the nicotine got there from second hand smoke. Then we can break out the popcorn while the company lawyers call to the stand expert witnesses who testify that the second hand smoke danger is a myth, and defense lawyers counter with experts who swear it is a clear and present danger. This trial can have no bad outcome. If the defense wins the guy gets his job back plus back pay. If the company wins the second hand smoke myth is blown sky high.
Kinda like the lottery. Which is a voluntary tax on stupid people.
DUI of Nicotine is next.
And I was thinking snuff or chewing tobacco.
Does Scotts have a policy against smokeless tobacco?
I'm betting they do.
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.