Man fired for smoking at home

Post Reply New Topic

Off-the-job smoker sues over firing
Says company policy is a slippery slope

By Sacha Pfeiffer, Globe Staff | November 30, 2006

A Buzzards Bay man has sued The Scotts Co. , the lawn care giant, for firing him after a drug test showed nicotine in his urine, indicating that he had violated a company policy forbidding employees to smoke on or off the job.


http://www.boston.com/business/globe/ar ... er_firing/

This is just wrong I do not smoke and really don't like to be around when people are but this is just wrong. Scotts tries to justify it as getting their heath costs down. So who's next maybe my medical costs are to high fire me too? Do I go on the computer too much and not get out enough or do I drive to fast on my way home,maybe when I get home I have a beer. Somehow I think this guy has more to fear from what he sprays daily at work on lawn than from the smoking.

smoking impacts other people. Aspies are especially sensitive to smell and it stinks.

Here is a link you do not have to registrar for http://www.nbc6.net/health/10429399/detail.html

So does spraying the junk they put on peoples lawns. Yes I am very sensitive to smells and can tell when they are within a block of my house. I do not smoke and can pick anyone who does out quickly but this was not because of that they said it was a wellness effort on their part to cut down on costs. He did not smoke at work but at home so his smoking does not concern me. So can anyone who does not pass their wellness cost cutting test have to go?

I think we can safely call this fascist. Who the bloody hell are the company to dictate to employees what they do in their own time?! How dare they! The sheer bloody nerve of it is making my blood boil over. The dictatorial slimeballs should be boiled to death.

Let's look right at the root of the problem: He knew company policy, he knowingly and willingly broke it and would have been fully aware of the consequences, the consequences were then enacted upon him. Done and done.

Anyway, anything to make smokers pay has my vote. What a filthy, destructive habit. Why do people even start it these days knowing full well the risks - not to mention it makes everything, including yourself, smell horrible.

Yes, let's look right at the root of the problem. The company dictated an outrageous policy. They have every right to ban smoking at the workplace, but they have no right to tell someone what they do in their own home. Just rolling over on something like this gives them the power to do it, though-- if this weren't stopped, how far could it be taken? Think about it... what if they refused to hire homosexuals, or even unmarried but non-celebate heterosexuals, because of increased AIDS risk? Or, in fact, anyone with a pre-existing condition that would drive up their insurance costs?



Just because you don't like smokers doesn't mean you should support fascism. It's the old argument... "I didn't protest because I wasn't a Jew."

>>Yes, let's look right at the root of the problem. The company dictated an outrageous policy. They have every right to ban smoking at the workplace, but they have no right to tell someone what they do in their own home. Just rolling over on something like this gives them the power to do it, though-- if this weren't stopped, how far could it be taken? Think about it... what if they refused to hire homosexuals, or even unmarried but non-celebate heterosexuals, because of increased AIDS risk? Or, in fact, anyone with a pre-existing condition that would drive up their insurance costs?<<

I didn't support it, I was just highlighting the simple fact that 'rules are rules'. You can attack the fairness of the rules all you want, but that doesn't mean a thing as long as they are in their current form. He broke them and he got the just treatment *according to the rules he agreed to*, fair or not.

But yes, we should indeed attack the rules themselves if they seem unfair. If not for active and conscious citizens then the governenmets would get away with ridiculous things. I'm thinking Orwell here.

>>Just because you don't like smokers doesn't mean you should support fascism. It's the old argument... "I didn't protest because I wasn't a Jew."<<

This second paragraph had nothing to do with the first. It was just a musing that I hoped people would entertain.

ACtually you did support it-- you said it had your vote.

Again, treat the paragraphs separately. The second has nothing to do with the first, being a personal thought. My debate was regarding laws being attacked for being laws in themselves, which is pointless, where I was saying that you need to attack their basis.

So, you'd support people not being able to have sex with who they please outside the workplace because there's a reason for it? Very, very slippery slope is that.

>>So, you'd support people not being able to have sex with who they please outside the workplace because there's a reason for it? Very, very slippery slope is that.<<

No, not a reason, but a law. I would follow the law as long as it was in affect, and if I willingly broke it I would also accept the full consequences. That being said, if I disagreed with the appropriatness of the law, then I would go through the proper means to challenge it and voice my opinion.

Also, supporting a law is different from following it. You can hate a law but still obey it.

And yes, sex is slippery.

As for rules are rules have you ever worked for a large multinational company? Their policy books are written by lawyers who by the way are the only ones to understand them. The ones I have worked for in the past would hand out booklets if you read them you would see that they could fire you for just about anything.I wonder if all the executives are held to the same standards? Oh the irony a company that promotes the spraying of all kinds of chemicals on peoples lawns and trees uptight about cigarettes
BTW it could be anything that anyone in power find objectionable of perfectly legal. Maybe they don't like something you do at home would you quit just for them?

There are some laws you can't challenge without breaking them.

If a law is blatantly wrong, I will ignore it. I will only obey the laws of the state as long as it is reasonable towards its citizens. If that state enacts unreasonable laws then you ignore them and look after you and yours first.

>>There are some laws you can't challenge without breaking them.<<

Really? Like what. Surely if the 'challenge' was in reason..

>>If a law is blatantly wrong, I will ignore it. I will only obey the laws of the state as long as it is reasonable towards its citizens. If that state enacts unreasonable laws then you ignore them and look after you and yours first.<<

Yeah, fair enough. Unfortunately for this guy he chose to put himself in a situation where if he ignored these laws then he would suffer the consequences. And *now* he sues. Silly.

The banning of all public dissent. Try challenging that, Houdini.



I still maintain that employers should never be able to put things like that in a contract. What's outside of work is outside of work. If it's not affecting his ability to do his job why should they care?

>>The banning of all public dissent. Try challenging that, Houdini.<<

Haha, maybe next week. But that really is common sense.

>>I still maintain that employers should never be able to put things like that in a contract. What's outside of work is outside of work. If it's not affecting his ability to do his job why should they care?<<

Perhaps we should ask them. They obviously made it for a reason, however unfair it may seem.