Replies

I work for Scotts.

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.

What about if you drink? Waht about if you get a speeding ticket? What about if you have guns in your house? What about if you're 150 lbs overweight? What if you're only 50 lbs overweight?

All those could be deemed within the right of a company to regulate since all those things according to current PC thought could make you a high risk employee. Would you agree to firing on any of those grounds?

they should be able to hire and fire anyone they want to within reason.

Only to the degree that their behavior directly affects their job. Otherwise your employer becomes your owner.

I will not buy another Scott's product.

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.

The question is whether they are right to change the rules after hiring you.

If they wanted to have it be that anyone they hired was a non-smoker and agreed not to take up smoking as long as they worked for the company well and good. But changing the rules and making them retroactive is a little dicier.

For example it is a condition of employment at my company that all new hires must have a High School Diploma or a GED.

We have a whole slew of old timers who have neither.

Would it be just for us to demand that they go back to school and get their GED or be fired?

It might be legal. But I don't think that it would be right. And companies should be seen doing what is right. It is just good business.

So, was this guy (and yourself) subject to random urinalysis to determine if you've been smoking? Did the entire workforce agree to that, or did Scotts say they'd just do it?

>> 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?

Within reason huh? How much do you like your job and at what point would YOU draw the line?

In the future:
No drinking alcohol off the job or fired. Drinking alcohol is notoriously bad for your health, it gets others killed if you drive with it, its addictive to some, it affects you the day after during the work day, its just bad. So its legitimate to fire someone for doing that off duty.

Its usually gun owners who go postal and shoot up fellow workers. So its legitimate to not allow employees access to guns in their private lives. Not all gun owners go postal, but most people who go postal are gun owners...even if for a short time.

Meat is known to cause cancer, is fatty, generally not good for you. Raises health costs. Its legitimate to require workers not to eat meat, or to at least eat it only one day per week. Failure to adhere is a legitimate reason to terminate employment.

There are many things people do in their private lives that can effect on-job performance or have secondary effects on the job. For instance, dangerous skydiving, motor-cycling, Civil War reenacting, harboring dangerous things like dogs, or rock climbing can cause disruption of both you and your fellow employees if a funeral becomes necessary.

To be safe, you will find in your employee a manual a list of private off-work activities that are allowed by the company. It is easier to list those allowed than those that are not.

If you agree, sign your manual and return to human resources. If you do not, please find work at one of the three or four other companies that have not adopted this policy.

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.

So, if your company creates a policy that blacks are not welcome in your company, you will be ok with that too? How about people who eat too much? Do they have a urine test for chocolate consumption too? The last time I checked, both cigarettes and chocolate are legal products?

Unbelievable!!!!!!

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

:)