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
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.
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."
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?
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.
DUI of Nicotine is next.
Dumb lawsuit. There is no such thing as a right to smoke.
The best he can hope for is to catch that SOB metrosexual owner of Scotts in Michigan where dueling is now legal.
Does Scotts make the fertilizer that tobacco farmers use on their tobacco? Maybe they know something that the general public does not know. Maybe they don't want to be sued for making fertilizer loaded with toxins that are soaked up by tobacco and then inhaled/ingested into the systems of tobacco smokers/users.
Here is an example of one of the more extreme policies I've seen. Great company and products, just a bit over the top on tobacco. They're in a rural setting in So. NH.
http://www.kimballphysics.com/about_KPI/visits.htm#Tobacco%20Policies
I hope their ass is grass.
Leni
Why do I get the impression that this is probably tied to a health care plan that the company pays for. The employee has agreed not to smoke for some reason.
I bet everyone that works there feels really good about themselves, being a better class of citizens and all.
Makes me doubly glad I fired them this summer for complete incompetence. They keep calling me begging me to come back even after repeatedly telling them I would never have anything to do with them again. Next time they come begging, I'll hit them with this too. Nazi's.
Brilliant.