Man fired for smoking at home

Post Reply New Topic

Did not read everything wrote here but I did hear the CEO of Scotts on CNBC like around June. He said workers would be given a certain amount of time to quit smoking
(even when not at work ) or be fired.

I got a funny feeling that was a non-Union workforce. At my jobsite we had alot
of people smoke theirself to death over the years. Most the workforce smoked.

I bet Scotts plans to scale back its pension plan to now. Since a large number of
workers want be dieing earily shortly after retirement. A complete pension for some
healthy non-smoker for 20+ years thats going to get expensive.

OK.

(folds arms)

We're waitin', persecuted smoker's former employer.

This too is common sense, why should companies have the right to regulate things you can legally do off hours.

Better grab a pillow, this may take some time. I doubt the buisness was looking out for his personal health though (just a hunch).

But isn't anti-smoking *whatever* good though? (on a side topic)

I don't like smoking. But I support people's right to smoke as they please.

The Chinese government may have a different take on it. The world is over populated.

The argument that anything is automatically good is dangerous. Fighting terrorists is good, but much that is done under that justification is not.

The company has made its reason clear... they're doing it to save money on health insurance. I just don't think that it's an acceptable reason to intrude into the private lives of its workers.

I am a daft bugger.

And yes, I agree with you. What next, the company will set a curfew on you - i.e. no going out after 7pm? If it's written in the contract, you must obey it after all. Even though it's utterly ridiculous.

I think the company will lose on this one but then they will change their policy to force smokers to pay a higher rate for their health insurance (which is what they should have done anyways). The company may not be allowed to tell a person what the can and cannot do in their own home but they certainly have the right to contain costs within their control (including health care costs).

I do see the companies point though. Workers who do not smoke should not have to subsidize the habit of those who do. Scott just simply implemented it wrong.

Agreed!

The company had a rule that invaded the privacy of its employees. Nicotine is a legal drug and the company had no right to test for it in the man's urine even if it had a rule saying that it did.

By this same argument they could institute mandatory diets and exercise for their workers. BTW life insurance already gives smokers high rates okay they can do that but how many of you have had to pay a lot in medical expenses related to your diagnosis and such? They would charge more for that too or maybe not even offer benefits. I'd also charge more for someone who works with pesticides herbicides, and fertilizer.

As has already been said - the hypocrisy is almost beyond comprehension how a company that sprays toxins (that DO get into the air and areas around where they spray) has the "right" to say anything about people who smoke in their own homes on their own time.

This is really nothing more than socialist nonsense that people everywhere have been conditioned to accept as normal. If others want to be part of the collective than feel free but why can't they do that without completely infringing on the rights of others. Smoking laws are nothing more than red herrings used as excuses to push for totalitarian control - just to see how willing the population is to thinking that they need others to make desicions for them. People are willing to sacrifice their freedom for such nonsense as the greater good of the collective. And of course dissenters are "bad" because that is the marginalizing propaganda that has been the focus of anti-smoking campaigns. And much like the poem from the Nazi Era - it is ok to violate some peoples freedoms for the so-called good of the majority but when does that stop? I'm sure diabetics cost more and people with high blood pressure and obesity and maybe just people with mentall illness and physical disabilities in general. And don't say there are laws - because circumventing basic freedoms has already been endorsed by doing this to smokers so maybe those laws protecting people will not be as supported once everyone recognized the "benefits" to society. And this already has become more and more of an issue of control because food and other conditions are already being looked at as needing to be governed. It's like the story where you can't toss a frog into a boiling pot because he would jump out, but if you just slowly turn up the heat he will sit there.

My last job gave a rebate on health insurance to nonsmokers. My husband and I are both nonsmokers, so we were saving around $40/month on our part of the premium. My current employer gives rebates on smoking cessation classes and classes for other things such as diabetes control, weight loss, and blood pressure control. They also give rebates for excersising 30 minutes three times per week, and you are entitled to have your lunch breaks lengthened by that ammount of time so you can use the company gym. I think it's a great idea, and it doesn't intrude on the habits of people who don't want to change. Personally, I don't like the company gym, and I go to Gold's because they have water aerobics there.

Dixie Regional Medical Center in St. George, UT also has a policy of not hiring smokers. The policy, as far as I can tell, doesn't address what would happen if someone were to start (or resume) smoking during their employment. I thought that was utterly ridiculous and I would never work for them because I don't think that they have a right to do this.

Encourage people to give up smoking, become healthier or become less of a drain on the environment by all means. I don't have a problem with that. It's when people are directly penalised, punished and ostracised for a completely legal lifestyle choice that I have to disagree.

There must be frogs who leave the water when is getting hot while the other frogs think they are crazy for leaving such a warm and comfortable place.

A lot of our problems are with people who think that we are crazy when we warn them that something's going on.