Scott's Lawn Company Fires Worker For Smoking (OFF The Job)

[matcom]

:eyes:

<snip>

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.

The suit, filed yesterday in Suffolk Superior Court, is highly unusual because it involves an employee who was terminated for engaging in legal activities away from the workplace. The lawyer who filed the complaint said he believes it is the first of its kind in the state.

Scotts announced last year that it would no longer hire tobacco users, a policy company officials said was intended to improve employee wellness and drive down the company's healthcare costs. But civil libertarians say it violates personal privacy rights and could be used to mask age discrimination or other illegal behavior.

"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 civil rights and privacy violation lawsuit against Scotts.

"Next they're going to say, 'You don't get enough exercise' or 'Both your parents died of a heart attack at age 45 so we don't want to hire you because you're more likely to need medical care,' " Schwartz said. "I don't think anybody ought to be smoking cigarettes, but as long as it's legal, it's none of the employer's business as long as it doesn't impact the workplace."

Jim King, a Scotts spokesman, said company lawyers had not seen the lawsuit and would not comment on it.

MUCH MORE>>>>>>

http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2006/11/30/off_the_job_smoker_sues_over_firing?mode=PF

[AllegroRondo]

1. I seem to remember a Michigan company a couple years ago

that required all employees to be non-smokers. They won the lawsuits employees filed against them, and were allowed to continue. The judge ruled that smoking was not protected by employment discrimination laws.

[underpants]

2. Hold it. They are drug testing grass cutters now?

Holy smokes its a good thing this wasn't going on in the 80's we really would be "in the weeds" right now.

Amazing.

[yellowcanine]

5. Of course. Do you want some reefer mad dude crashing into your trees,

running across the flower beds, mowing over the family cat, etc? I didn't think so.

[Deep13]

16. Bosses are now cops. Didn't you get the memo?

:shrug:

[jmowreader]

49. He wasn't a grass cutter

Scott's sells things like Miracle-Gro fertilizer, Roundup for small applicators, and grass seed.

The poor bastard who got canned for smoking off the job probably worked in a warehouse somewhere.

[yellowcanine]

3. This is wrong. Nicotine is not illegal. Unless he lied about it an insurance form, they

have no right to do this. Scotts may have just bought themselves a lawsuit which they will either lose or have to settle.

[johnnie]

7. Naw..

This is becoming pretty normal out there. The larger percent of the population in America seems to back this too, so as long as tobacco is regarded as the devil, more and more companies will start doing this. Welcome to the new and improved clean smelling America!

[yellowcanine]

8. I am no fan of smoking. I think it stinks up a room or a car. So, yes, ban it from

office buildings and company vehicles. But in your own house or car, no they have no right to tell you it is not allowed. OTOH, if you want to smoke, you should not complain about paying higher health insurance rates or life insurance premiums either just as the guy who wants to drive a Corvette is going to pay higher car insurance premiums.

[johnnie]

10. I have no problem paying higher insurance..

As long as other people pay in accordance to their lifestyles also. There should be a form you fill out that states how much you smoke, how much red meat you eat, how much alcohol you drink, how much fast food you eat, how many times you go over the speed limit and how fast over, do you talk on a cell phone in your car, do you wear seat belts, do you sky dive , do you do rock climbing, do you run with scissors in your house ect...

[yellowcanine]

12. Sorry, no, that won't cut it. There are reams of data on the health effects of smoking. Not so

on all of those other things. And there already are exclusions on life insurance policies for activities that have been demonstrated to be highly risky - sky diving, for example. DUI will get your car insurance canceled real fast also, as will multiple speeding tickets and other moving violations. As for things like eating red meat, it would be hard to quantify how much is too much and even harder to monitor. When it comes to health effects of smoking, there really is not such a thing as "moderate". Any smoking is going to increase the risk of heart disease and cancers. Not so with eating red meat.

[johnnie]

13. Sorry, I guess my point didn't come across

I'll just say, it won't be long.

[PVnRT]

35. Eh?

Rock climbing isn't a risky behavior? You're saying that climbing a cliff is no more dangerous then watching the evening news on the couch? There are things that can be done that are obviously more dangerous than not doing them, so why not include them?

Unless, of course, you just want to punish the EVIL EVIL smokers and fat people.

[yellowcanine]

39. Hmm. Well I didn't say that. Your words, not mine. Your point is?

Insurance companies assess risks and act accordingly - either raise premiums or refuse to insure people who have demonstrated that they engage in risky behavior. If rock climbing were a significant risk, I am sure they would write exclusions into policies. So far I haven't seen that so it must not be as risky as sky diving - which I have seen excluded in policies. As for the evening news on the couch, I wouldn't be surprised if choking on a dorito or having a heart attack from lack of exercise weren't just about as risky as what the average rock climber does.

[xmas74]

54. I quit smoking in the past six months.

When I upped my life insurance the first question they asked me was "Do you still smoke?" Turns out I can't get the half price rate (yep, nearly 50% cheaper for a nonsmoker) until it's been out of my system for two years.

And you're quite right-you should have to list all activities. If they want to intrude on your lifestyle w/ the smoking bit they should ask about what else you do.

[Skittles]

27. I believe healthcare costs are driven up more by non-exercisers

than by smokers - and there is reams of data to back that up - how about we send the exercise police out to make sure you're dong your daily allotment

[yellowcanine]

31. Again it is a question of monitoring so it is a non starter even if your claim is

true, which frankly, I am doubtful of, at least on a per capita basis. There are probably more non exercisors than smokers and some non exercisors are also smokers so it is kind of a sticky wicket anyway.

[Blue-Jay]

58. In other word,

"I came here to bash some smokers, so don't try to derail me, dammit!"

By the way, I exercise AND I smoke. Not at the same time, usually.

[GirlinContempt]

75. You should try it

Total rush

[LaurenG]

4. That is scary

I'll bet they get lower health insurance rates by guaranteeing no one on their policies smoke.

[johnnie]

6. Oh well

It seems to me that more and more people are applauding this type of thing. As long as it has to do with tobacco, most people don't seem to care what is being done to people.

Here's the catch, when it was discussed about the ban on smoking in bars, many of the supporters said something to the effect of "it helps the people who work for the bars that don't smoke", of course it was wrong to say "well, tell them to find another job". Now, a person gets popped for smoking outside of work, and they tell them to go find another job..LOL.

Pretty soon this will all catch up with us.

[jobycom]

17. Oh come on.

Smoking kills non-smokers. It should be banned altogether, but since the goddamned tobacco corporations have bought enough politicians, we can't get it banned. So local governments do what they can to protect the innocents. What's "catching up with us" is all these appeasements of the death-stick industry. We are too chicken to do the right thing, so our laws are getting all muddled. People who whine about how many deaths the oil industry causes through wars but defend the tobacco industry are being disengenuous. Yes, everyone has the right to kill themselves for pleasure if they want--it's the people they take with them that need the law's protection.

Still, employers shouldn't be able to control what a person does on his or her own time, especially an activity that is still inexplicably legal.

[johnnie]

18. You're right

[PVnRT]

34. Yeah, prohibition works great

n/t

[jobycom]

71. So, what, you think we should end prohibition on murder, rape, robbery

just because they don't work completely, either?

And I'm not really talking about prohibition. Someone who wants to kill themselves should be allowed to. Just not within smelling distance (100 yards or more, or any enclosed area) of an innocent victim.

Some kid died at DisneyWorld earlier in the year, and half the posts wanted to shut down the evil corporate giant. Smoking kills hundreds of thousands of people a year, and no one gives a damn?

[YellowRubberDuckie]

56. OH My God...You think like I do...

And it bugs the shit out of me that people from this place won't freaking shop at WalMart , but they'll smoke. Tobacco companies give more money to the Republicans, and the only reason the tobacco companies are decent to their employees is because they're union. I don't get the logic. READ: Smoking is worse than spending money at Walmart! Shopping at Walmart won't kill those around you!
Duckie

[jobycom]

70. .

:yourock:

[yellowcanine]

19. Well no - most here are not "applauding this type of thing." So you are pulling a straw man there.

Most said Scotts had no right to do this. As for smoking in bars - if someone took the job knowing that smoking was part of the deal - then yes, they probably should find another job, as smoking and bars traditionally go together and it is not so hard to find a job in a smoke free bar, as lots of bar owners are realizing they can do a pretty good business excluding smokers. I actually would prefer to let the free market work there. OTOH, an office building or airplane is another thing altogether - people don't have as much choice about being in an office building or an airplane as they do in a bar.

[johnnie]

22. I said "more and more people" are applauding

Not people here applauding.


There is no point in me debating this issue because there are too many people on the other side and what I have seen, there is no changing anyone's mind about anything here.

I will say that I personally believe that each day we are having our personal lives being taken over by the do-gooders of the country, and it will one day blow up in our face.

[yellowcanine]

24. Not sure that most people would applaud banning smoking outside of the workplace and public

buildings - so I still think you are working on a straw man there.

[johnnie]

33. Enough with the straw man. That phrase is overused and a cop out

I'll tell you where I stand on this.

First off, I am a single, 42 year old childless guy that lives alone. I hardly ever go out to eat at a restaurant, I don't hang out in bars and I don't fly in planes too often. These smoking bans aren't affecting my life one bit and my smoking isn't affecting anyone else's life one bit.

With that said, here in Ohio we had a smoking ban on the ballot that passed with no problem. This included the regular places along with bars and in some circumstances your own residency. If you run a business out of your own home, you are forbidden to smoke there if the business involves someone who doesn't live in your home. A lot of people supported that.

They had a suburb of Cleveland here not long ago that wanted to make it illegal to smoke in your car if you had minors in your car. People supported that. Which means that if I was in my Jeep with the top down and driving my 17 year old nephew someone and lit up, I could be pulled over and given a ticket.

If you go to the Ohio forum and read the smoking threads when the issues were on the ballot, you can see where many people here supported the no smoking anywhere, including your own home issue.

There is now talk of MADD pushing to have every car equipped with a breathalyser. These things are zero tolerance, which means that if you want to have a glass of wine for dinner, don't try to start your car within a two hour (at least) time period afterwards. Also, don't be surprised if you blow in it too close to brushing your teeth and it shuts you car down. But yet, this is being supported by a lot of people also.

My point here is that from what I see, we are getting our privacies encroached upon day by day, more and more. The more people support the smoking bans, seatbelt laws, helmet laws, wiretapping, car nannies and a hell of a lot of other things, the more privacies you will lose.

People don't care when they think it doesn't concern them, but the truth is, one day it will concern you and you will only have yourselves to blame (not you personally). As I said, most of this shit doesn't affect me personally, because I don't have the typical life that it would affect, but I get concerned over how much control people want to give others over their own lives.

This situation of the guy getting fired for smoking outside the job is a prime example. You said that most people here think it is wrong, well that's fine, but it is getting closer to the day when you can think all you want about it being wrong, but because of people giving others the rights over everyone's personal business, this is going to be the norm.

People can argue with me until they are blue in the face about second-hand smoke, smelly clothes, stinky cars and whatever, but that is not my concern. You don't smell my smoke and you don't breathe it in. The only people who do are people that choose to come over to my house and hang out. These bans and all mean nothing to me, but I am concerned with the way people are easily giving up their rights thinking they are "saving lives".

As far as I am concerned, I could give a shit what happens to this country if no one else gives a shit. I won't have kids to worry about, or a wife or decedents to be concerned if they are being home policed every moment. But unfortunately, I do concern myself with the future generations, and trust me... second-hand smoke will not destroy the human race.

[yellowcanine]

36. I think it is a good term. Sorry you disagree.

"If you run a business out of your own home, you are forbidden to smoke there if the business involves someone who doesn't live in your home. A lot of people supported that."

Well how is that different from a public building then? If I live in an apartment over my office, that doesn't give me the right to smoke in my office where there are other people just because my "home" is in the same building. Why should it?

And top down or top up, if you are smoking in a car with minors you are potentially damaging their health. Why would you want to do that? Would you smoke in your jeep with the top down if your nephew told you it made his asthma worse? The state has a responsibility to protect minors from adults who don't know better. Rant and rail all you want, but second hand smoke is a health threat and so are the cigarette butts that somehow get tossed out of the window more often than not from what I have observed. Why won't so many smokers use the damn ashtray? If a large majority of smokers would demonstrate a little common courtesy maybe the government wouldn't need to stick its nose in so much. So far as I can tell when I see someone smoking in traffic nine times out of ten the butt is going on the ground. Your smoking cohorts are not winning hearts and minds out there with their behavior.

[johnnie]

41. Good luck in the war on saving the world

I have no idea what your response means in respect to my post. I was talking about losing our rights involving our privacy, not cigarette butts. I'm not trying to be snarky here, but there is no use in going 'round and 'round about this when it is all about the evils of smoking. 99% of us know that smoking is bad for your health and can be hazardous to other people's health, the point is how far do we let other people tell us how to live our lives?

I'm more uneasy about it than you are, that's the only fact I see.

[yellowcanine]

44. How you "live your life" can have an impact on other people if you are smoking carelessly.

That is my point. Hence the example about butts. If smokers will not police themselves society will because other people have the right not to be endangered by smoking - whether second hand smoke or a still-lit butt flying into my face in traffic. Minors often can't or won't speak up for themselves, so they need to be protected from those who think nothing of lighting up with them sitting right next to them in a car, top down or not. (And don't you think the top down example is just a little off the point? - most cars on the road are not convertibles and the top is often up on a convertible).

It is interesting to me that you talked a lot about other people running your life but almost all of the examples you gave all had implications for people other than yourself.

I am not saving the world, just educating people whom I think need educating. And remember, I was on the side of the smoker in this case, not on the side of Scotts. I am not into prohibition of smoking, I just want smokers to be more aware of how it could impact others.

[johnnie]

45. Exactly

"almost all of the examples you gave all had implications for people other than yourself."

That is my point. It isn't about me, it is about other people and the future of the country as I see it.

[yellowcanine]

48. Hmm. I don't think you are taking it the way I meant it. I meant that the

examples you gave of smoker's rights being taken away were situations where someone else could be impacted by the smoking. But I think you knew that.

[johnnie]

50. I'm afraid I don't know what examples you are talking about

I said that most of the rights being taken away don't affect me anyway. Which ones specifically that I mentioned would you think would affect me?

[yellowcanine]

51. Not sure I was commenting on which ones would affect you specifically but anyway

you did talk about smoking in cars and how that kept you from smoking in your Jeep with your nephew with the top down.....

On edit - I can see how you might have taken it that way as I did use "you" carelessly in a generic way where I probably should have used "one". My apologies. I blame it on my rural Pennsylvania upbringing. Refined language was not a priority.

My point was that you were talking about freedoms being taken away but giving examples of where the freedoms being taken away were actually for actions that could impact others - smoking in home office where there were employees, smoking in car with minors, etc. So yes, I am opposed to smoking prohibitions where only the smoker is impacted but very much for restricting the right to smoke where others are impacted - and particularly minors, as it has been demonstrated that they are more vulnerable to second hand smoke - and putting the top down on a car does not eliminate that risk.

[petronius]

37. He didn't say "most," he said "more and more"

Meaning that approval for this type of action is increasing - it doesn't mean that a majority of people think this is a good idea, just that more people like the idea now than did in the past. I think it's just another manifestation of something that has been observed in many other areas of society: Americans are increasingly willing to approve of monitoring and oversight by governmental and private organizations, especially when it's dressed up in the guise of 'safety' or 'cutting costs.' In general, Americans are increasingly accepting of eroding liberties, and while in this case it's the Evil Smokers^tm who are getting the shaft, the phenomenon in general should scare all of us...

[johnnie]

40. Thank you

You said it a lot better than I have. That's why I stay out of most debates like this, I know what I'm saying, but other people must read my yappins and wonder what the hell is going on?..lol

[petronius]

42. You're welcome. Actually, you said it quite clearly in #33, I just like to

hear myself talk... :)

It's funny, in a way - pretty much everyone on DU recognizes in general that preserving liberty can require defending unpopular positions or defending the rights of groups we may not belong to (or even like). For example, few people disagree that protecting free speech requires standing up for people's right to say some fairly disgusting things. However, it seems like there are a couple of areas (basically, smokers and fat people) where, even on DU, people's sense of moral outrage takes over and they are willing to allow or ignore social and legal impositions that they would object to in other circumstances.

And no, I don't think it's a majority of DUers, and I'm not necessarily talking about anyone on this thread/sub-thread, but the pattern is pretty recognizable...

[yellowcanine]

46. I sided with the smoker in this case. But I do think that smokers have brought

a lot of this on themselves by being careless. My personal beef is how many smokers think it is ok to toss butts unto the ground. I will defend a smoker's right to smoke if it is not bothering or endangering anyone else and they dispose of butts properly.

[brook]

63. There was a time

when it was easy to find a public receptacle in which one could properly dispose of a cigarette. Not so anymore. I'm not fond of putting the extinguished butt in my pocket - but I often do - because all those people who want me to be considerate are so inconsiderate. There have been a few times when not finding any receptacle, I tossed it in the street out of anger & disgust. It's ridiculous to expect me to respect others rights while they trash mine ....while continuing to harp and complain incessantly about the evils of smoking.

The Propaganda Machine is so fallacious, I had to explain to my son tonight that his father's particular deadly cancer had crap all to do with nicotine.

[yellowcanine]

64. Well, most of the butts have been coming out of car windows in traffic, so I do not give smokers a

pass for lack of receptacles. Cars still have ashtrays. Smokers just don't want to use them for whatever reason. I applaud you for trying to do the right thing - but ultimately the responsibility for the butt is yours - not the taxpayers. And a lot of your fellow smokers apparently don't give a shit. That attitude is making it more difficult for all smokers. Yes there is a lot of self rightousness on the part of non-smokers - people who have quit seem to be the worst, curiously. But it seems to me if smokers really were concerned about this they would police each other and also prevail upon the tobacco companies to provide public receptacles. Maybe there could be a designated cigarette tax for that purpose - just like tire dealers charge a dollar a tire to dispose of old tires. Smoking is only a right as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. And that includes having to deal with the butts and the second hand smoke. I can't always find a trash can to dispose of my dog's poop bag either, and guess what - I carry it with me until I find one - even if that means taking it back to my house or car. I am responsible for my dog - not the public. I feel the same way about "dog parks" at taxpayer expense, by the way. They are indeed nice for dog owners, but they should be funded out of license fees and/or private donations, not general revenue.

[brook]

66. If dog owners

were really concerned about dog poop in public spaces, they'd police other dog owners. I'm always amazed when I drive through my tourist infested town and state park to see all those escapees to Paradise letting their dogs defecate in our estuary. Yes, you pick yours up. So do all my neighbors. Many, many people don't. Maybe a $30 a day tax on dog poop would be a good idea? That $30 is about equivalent to what a New Yorker pays in taxes on a carton of cigarettes. In the last 10 years, a carton here has gone from about $17 to $44. Sad thing about all those taxes and settlement money is that none of it seems to have been used for the purposes promised in exchange for your vote. (I don't consider an anti-smoking ad aimed at teens that airs at 3 am as a productive use of my money).

And those receptacles? Towns interested in keeping their tourist business install them. For instance, I noted they're all over Jackson Hole, Wy.

I suppose the long and the short of it is that you cannot legislate 'responsibility' - anymore than you can always expect the other guy to do the heavy lifting.

[skygazer]

55. My brother is a non-smoker who works in a bar

And he was angry when smoking was outlawed in bars in his state because he felt it wasn't anyone's business to do so and worried that they'd lose business.

I honestly feel that it's ridiculous to ban something that's legal to do - if you're going to ban it, ban it outright (though I doubt that would be effective either - I'm no fan of prohibition). And I'm a non-smoker too.

Why not have business owners decide if they want to run a smoke-friendly or smoke-free establishment? I guess that would be too easy. :eyes:

[QMPMom]

9. While I am not a fan of smoking, it's going way too far for a company

to he able to tell a person they can't smoke when they are not at work.

A few years back the Superintendent of Schools of the District where I was born and raised was called on the carpet by the School Board. This is a rural area and pretty conservative on most fronts. The "crime" the Superintendent committed in the eyes of the Board? He wore jeans to the local donut shop on a Saturday.

He was told to not do that any more as it didn't present a good image. What a load of crap! So what?? The guy went to get his kids some donuts on a Saturday morning! I guess he was supposed to put on a suit and tie first.

I don't rememebr the outcome, but the people of the area thought that the Board had lost their collective mind. What made me really, really sad is that the Board Chairman at the time is a very good friend of mine. :banghead:

[pokerfan]

61. Not the School Board! Anything but that!

"God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board." --Mark Twain

[yellowcanine]

68. If the school board requires that they should buy him a couple extra suits.

[jobycom]

11. Cool. This case pits two of my strongest outrages against each other.

On the one hand, I believe smoking within a hundred yards of another human being should be criminalized with the same penalties (since it has the same results) as attempted murder, or at least assault.

On the other hand, I hate the attitude that employers can control a person's actions while they are not at work. I feel so strongly about this that I am opposed to drug testing, to suspensions of pro atheletes for DUIs or assaults, or even firing someone for felony crimes like murder (obviously if someone is convicted of murder they can't do their job anymore anyway). An employer's control over an individual should extend only to what that individual does on the job, and only to actions specifically related to the job. Someone who can't perform a job because of drug or alcohol impairment, or because they smell so badly of smoke they drive away customers, for instance, can be fired, but not someone for what they do at home.

I guess my second outrage wins out over the first in this case, since it basically accounts for the first, anyway.

Now I need something edible to restore my brain function, so I won't ramble so much. Better check with my boss to see what foods I'm allowed to eat.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

62. I hope to God you're sarcastic about this part of your post:

On the one hand, I believe smoking within a hundred yards of another human being should be criminalized with the same penalties (since it has the same results) as attempted murder, or at least assault.

[jobycom]

69. No.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

72. You're seriously comparing smoking with assault and attempted murder?

You think catching a whiff of smoke from 100 yards away (practically impossible) causes as much damage as, say, a baseball bat to the face?

[jobycom]

73. Absolutely.

There's no such thing as a "whiff" of cigarette smoke. It burns, it hurts, and it's deadly. A person who smokes where another human being can inhale it has no regard for human life. Drunk driving causes 17000 deaths a year, second hand cigarette smoke causes (using lowball estimates) 26000 deaths a year. That's in non-smokers. Some estimates say the number is closer to 70,000. I frankly don't care what smokers do to themselves, but they are dying at over 400,000 a year.

How many baseball bat murders were there last year?

If a major corporation built a plant that spewed the same toxic crap into the air, killing its neighbors, every liberal and a few conservatives would scream for it to be shut down and those responsible prosecuted. But the tobacco industry and corporations spend so much money buying Congresscritters that smokers can hide in denial and argue that it is their "right." THere should be no right to kill other people. Smoking alone--that's cool, you aren't hurting anyone but yourself. But smoking around other people should be illegal. Not every puff of smoke kills someone, obviously, but the cumulative effect of it being impossible to get away from smoke does.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

74. Where do I start...

There is such a thing as a "whiff" of cigarette smoke. If I'm walking past you on the street and smoking, you will literally catch a whiff of smoke. Unless you are hooked up to an oxygen tank, a whiff of smoke will not kill you.

The overwhelming majority of people dying of secondhand smoke die due to prolonged exposure to it in enclosed areas, not a one-time exposure to it in the open air, or even repeated exposure in the open air.

You mentioned that smoking within 100 yards of anybody should be criminalized as a felony, something that is both unenforceable and, well, impossible unless you live in the middle of nowhere. And if you can smell cigarette smoke from 100 yards away (a football field, mind you), then you must be some sort of alien life form.

A drunk driver has to hit you once to kill you. Someone who physically assaults you, baseball bat or otherwise, can also kill you, or at least cause severe damage. Proportionally speaking, drunk drivers and people who assault others are much more efficient than smokers in terms of causing harm to others.

[mainegreen]

14. What if he inhaled it second hand at a bar?

Total *f*ing bullshit. Either cigarettes are legal or they're not. Non of this half and half crap we seem to think is acceptable in society.

[matcom]

15. another question crossed my mind

what if he was using the patch to quit? :shrug:

[yellowcanine]

20. good point - or nicotine gum. If he had a prescription he would probably be

home free, though.

[Gormy Cuss]

21. Scott's Lawn Chemicals Service is worried about smokers?

Howzabout using only environmentally friendly care products --that might lower the corporate health care costs.

I don't think the guy will prevail if the evidence shows that he accepted the job knowing that this was a condition of employment and he had received a warning, but until we legislate away these sorts of employer mandates it's just going to get worse.

[Kali]

57. no shit

lawn chemicals - big source of water polution.

[ThomCat]

23. This needs to end up with a huge pay-out.

There's no way in hell companies should be able to regulate anyone's free-time activities unless it directly impairs their ability to do their job.

If this stands, and they get away with firing this guy, then we're on that slippery slope towards being owned by companies.

[Burma Jones]

25. Another good reason to take Health Insurance out of Private hands

single payer will keep businesses out of the nanny business

[yellowcanine]

32. Well yes, and then tax the hell out of all risky behaviors and put the tax money into the

health care pot. And speaking of pot, legalize it also and tax the hell out of it as well.

[ThomCat]

52. How would you keep pre-existing conditions and

disabilities from being taxed as risky?

[yellowcanine]

65. If we had a single-payer system, pre-existing conditions do not come up.

Everyone is covered, period. A pre-existing condition is not risky behavior. It could have resulted form a risky behavior, but the tax would be on the behavior, not the condition. In other words, you pay the tax when you buy the cigarettes, not when you have lung cancer or heart disease.

[benEzra]

67. You're being sarcastic, right? Geez, I hope so...

Well yes, and then tax the hell out of all risky behaviors and put the tax money into the health care pot.

You're being sarcastic, right? I sure hope the hell you are.

I don't smoke, drink, or do other drugs--except 1,3,7-trimethylxanthine:)--but I personally believe in the maxim that most progressives USED to believe in, that of my body, my choice. You know, "keep your laws off my body"?

The government does NOT exist to dictate the private behavior of consenting adults. Period. Believing otherwise is a throwback to a medieval, pre-Enlightment mentality.

FWIW, in the long run, somebody who dies at age 55 from smoking will cost the health care system a lot less than somebody who lives to age 95. Eating too much or failing to exercise enough, however, DO drastically raise the price of care over the patient's lifetime. I suppose the government could fine you an exorbitant amount if you don't run three times a week, too...

[Parche]

26. smoking

Was he smoking.....grass?????

[Connonym]

28. Excellent! n/t

[acmavm]

29. Employers who think one's off hours are their business need to

start paying around-the-clock wages.

[cwydro]

30. Absolutely ridiculous

Looks like this guy won't need to cut grass anymore...and he'll be able to buy ALL the smokes he likes...:rofl:

[Zookeeper]

38. Mind-boggling hypocrisy....

considering the toxic chemicals Scotts' is pushing!

[yellowcanine]

53. Well, to be fair, they aren't recommending smoking the 2,4 - D.

Just putting it on the grass where your cat might eat it.

[Left Is Write]

43. This hiring policy SHOULD be challenged - and found unlawful.

I'm an ex-smoker and I am no fan of smoking. However, I'm also no fan of restricting people's perfectly legal activities on their own time. This policy is just begging to be labeled discriminatory.

[ChoralScholar]

47. wow.

[ikojo]

59. There's an insurance company in Michigan

owned by an individual. This guy drug tests employees for NICOTINE, a LEGAL product. He told the employees they had to quit smoking. If an employee is caught smoking he/she can be fired.

This is what happens when unions have no power.

http://www.workrights.org/in_the_news/in_the_news_nytimes2-08-05.html

Company's Smoking Ban Means Off-Hours, Too


By JEREMY W. PETERS (NYT) 1190 words
Published: February 8, 2005

Warning: Cigarette smoking may be hazardous to your job.

That is what employees at Weyco, an insurance benefits administrator in this small central Michigan town, found out.

Under a new policy that legal specialists say is the first of its kind, Weyco began testing its 200 employees for smoking in January. And the company put workers on alert: In the future, they will be subject to random testing. If they fail, they will be fired.

[Oeditpus Rex]

60. Simple recourse

Blow up the building.