Man Fired For Smoking Sues Company

[Sequoia]

BOSTON -- A Massachusetts lawn care worker who was fired for being a smoker is now firing back. He's filing a first-of-its-kind lawsuit in Massachusetts.

The case is likely to be watched very closely, because the man was fired not for smoking on the job but for smoking off the job.

Scott Rodrigues, 30, was fired in the fall for failing a drug test administered by his employer, Scotts Lawn Service. The father of a 4-year-old boy, Rodriguez said he was astonished when he was told his employment was being terminated.

"I don't do anything. I don't drink, I don't do anything. And he goes, 'No, it was for nicotine,' and the room's spinning, basically, I'm going, what? I got tears welling up in my eyes. I go, 'You know, I love this job,'" Rodrigues recalled.

http://www.nbc4.tv/health/10429399/detail.html

[CrispyQ]

1. Last year on "Boston Legal" there was an episode exactly like this.

The fired employee lost due to 'at will' employment.

[raccoon]

23. If this man lives in an "at will" employment state, and I believe

most of them are--fugget it--he ain't gonna get jack.

With "at will" employment the employer can fire you for any ridiculous reason, or for no reason at all.

I don't think he should've been fired when he wasn't smoking on the job. People have been fired for far more illogical reasons, alas.

[grizmaster]

29. MA is "at will" just like here in RI

they can fire you for any reason or no reason and you have no legal recourse.

[truebrit71]

32. But they cannot fire you for doing something ON YOUR OWN TIME...

...and THAT is where this company will have it's arse handed to it...

I have heard of similar rules by similar companies, and the bottom line here is that companies need to understand a very basic principal. What I do on my own time is my own fucking business. Especially if it involves the utilisation of a legal product. What's next, will companies ban you from drinking on your own time? How about banning you from eating certain types of food?

This is an attempt by a little tin-pot nazi to make a point....I hope they get their fucking teeth kicked in (metaphorically)....

[grizmaster]

36. if it's not age, race, creed, color, sex, national origin, religion or disability

they can fire you for anything they want.

They can fire you for the kind of car you drive, the political organizations you belong too, the kind of food you eat, etc.



Oh, and I agree what you do on our own time is your own business, however the law provides us no such protection.

[truebrit71]

38. See the post a little lower (#14)....The company is breaking the law...

...And they will lose...

[grizmaster]

41. I see nothing there that helps this guy's case

Again, I believe that what we do on our own time should be our own business, but I have yet to see this supported by any case law.

[truebrit71]

42. This part of the law does..."invasion of privacy "....

...In other words, they cannot dictate to you what you do "privately"....

At least that's how I read it...

[grizmaster]

43. I'm sure the counter claim is that it isn't an invasion

that what an employee does that affects his health affects the company's bottom line (and possibly image).

I wish that the case law DID support that what doesn't happen at work is none of their business, but employment laws in America heavily favors the employer.

[truebrit71]

45. By making me urinate into a cup my privacy has by definition been invaded...

...The employment laws in this country are a joke...

[grizmaster]

50. having been the butt of that joke myself

I wholeheartedly agree.

If I hadn't needed the work so bad at the time I would have walked away

...after pissing on their floor instead.

[Selatius]

52. The US has generally been less labor-friendly than Western Europe.

Wall Street industrialists make lots of "investments" in Congress. For instance, many European countries have mandatory vacation laws for several weeks. The US has none, so Americans have, on average, less time off than anybody else in Western Europe. The average in France is, what, 6 weeks? The average in the US is 2 weeks or close to that.

[NashVegas]

65. He May Be Able to Claim Disability, Then

If alcoholics and other drug addicts can ...

[napi21]

119. I agree with your feelings, but you're wrong.

There is alarge hospital system here that notified all it's employees they MUst stop smoking if they want to work there. They committed to providing counciling,the patch, or whatever help that employee might request to help them quit, but they had to quit by a certain date, or they would be terminated.

There was also a TV expose about some employer who fired two of his older and valued workers for refusing to sop smoking. HE claimed it was to save him $$ on health insurance. The moderator of the show asked him, since it was over a year, did he notice any reduction in sick days or any improvement in his health care costs. He said there was no real way to tell. Thosetwo employees tried to sue him too, and lost. SOS. The only protected rights are race, color, religion or age.

[Selatius]

49. I believe most American workers are classified as "at will" employees

The biggest exception to that is unionized workers. Those are contract workers, not at-will workers.

In the past, you could literally be fired for anything, but the idea of "at will" has been narrowed over the years in the interests of protecting workers against abusive management and discrimination/hate.

[Exiled in America]

71. They are refering to the differences of "right to work" states - I think

Is that correct?

[Selatius]

75. "right-to-work" laws are aimed at unions, not workers per se.

A right-to-work law basically states that no industry can be "closed" to non-union workers. If you wish to join a union shop, you are free to do so without having to join the union as a condition of employment as is seen in states that don't have right-to-work laws like Michigan and other states considered pro-union.

Right-to-work laws are designed to suppress unions. The ultimate provision of these laws are that whatever the union negotiates with the employer, non-union workers must also enjoy the same benefits even if they did not contribute in any way to union activities. The result is a major "freeloader" problem. The question becomes, "Why should I have to join the union and pay dues when I get the same benefits without joining and without paying dues?" This helps drive down union participation rates by making it harder for unions to recruit new members, and if too few workers are left in the union, the company could decide the union is weak enough to finally crush and remove, thereby removing any collective bargaining power workers may have had with the employer.

"At will" employment merely describes the condition of non-contract workers. As I said earlier, "at will" used to mean you were completely at the mercy of your boss until labor standards, workers comp, civil rights laws, and others were passed narrowing the discretion employers once had in firing employees. Don't misunderstand now; an "at will" employee is still far easier to terminate than a union worker with a union contract is.

[Exiled in America]

93. Ok, thanks for the clarification!

cheers!

[Occulus]

142. Federal government does it too, then

USPS does this. Everyone (except casuals, who are being overused beyond the terms of the contract) gets union benefits (filing grievances, representation during disciplinary procedures, etc.).

It sucks. Add to that the APWU's inability to strike, and they've effectively been defanged.

[seabeyond]

2. the assholes behaving like this are just a fucked person

just a creep. so many will jump on board with this in all your self righteous bullshit and that is all it is .... bullshit. just disgusts me this is the little of who we are as people. disgusting

[zanne]

4. Yup. We're judgmental. And not only conservatives. nt

[whathappened]

3. this has to be stopped

i use to smoke and enjoy a smoke free home now , but every mans home is his castle and what he is doing after work is no buiness of his employer , we are all going to die of something , so they just can't use the old tired excuse of we want only healthy employee's , what will be next for them to beat the working man over the head with , what we eat

[Rainscents]

5. I hope he win and WIN BIG!

[Dulcinea]

Same here.

What he does on his own time is his own business, as long as he's not breaking the law! This kind of intrusive bullshite goes against everything America is supposed to stand for.

[Dulcinea]

17. oops, double post eom

[Ezlivin]

6. First they came for those who smoked crack, I remained silent; I did not smoke crack.

Then they came for those who smoked crank, I remained silent; I did not smoke crank.

Then they came for those who smoked pot, I remained silent; I did not smoke pot.

When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.

The Drug War would be funny if it wasn't for real.

[sui generis]

10. no, smoking is one of those einviger jew things

oh boy.

All these pathetic people who have no control over anything in their own lives, their waistlines, their wives/husbands having gay married affairs with their meth dealers, their kids painting their toenails black, whatever TRAGEDY is beyond them, smokers are very very convenient.

I have nearly the same opinion about MADD - there is a valid line in the sand that these kinds of people routinely ignore and overstep and overreach.

[seabeyond]

19. HOOOO yah, i couldnt agree with you more. to listen to a person

a friggin person...... being told they cannot provide for their family because someone has some wussy desire and need to control another is beyond pathetic

[niyad]

7. last I heard, tobacco was still legal--what in the world is wrong with that employer?

[sui generis]

8. a perfect example of your company owning (or trying to own) your life

I hope his lawsuit destroys this company as an example to others.

If you aren't driving a truck or responsible for someone else's life you shouldn't have to pee in a cup, give a stool sample, dna, hair snipping, semen sample, or any other damn invasion of privacy. When I go to work for an employer I trade a fixed number of hours for dollars, period. Period period. Just like an electrician or plumber.

Can the employer also insist that he take a daily multivitamin? What about that he not ever go skiing? Or require that he work out every day on a treadmill for exactly 55 minutes at 50% or better capacity?

[SoCalDem]

35. Here's a good one

Several years back the company my husband worked for had a COMPANY picnic. It was "expected" that all employees at least put in an appearance.

One of the shop guys broke his ankle in a volleyball game at the picnic.. he was denied worker's comp..and had to fight for disability pay.. (he had originally not even planned to attend, but felt pressured into attending.)

THIS stuff is why health insurance should be for all people at ALL times, and NOT doled out at the whim of an employer.

People who have employer-provided insurance become indentured servants and dare not change jobs because they might not be allowed onto the new company's insurance or even hired if they have a pre-existing condition, or have a sick family member.

National health care is the ONLY answer.. for employee and employer

Employers grumble about the cost (which they usually pass on through the prices they charge, or the cost that the employess pays or gives up in wage increases not given), but they like the control they have over their employees.

[LisaM]

9. It'll be "at will employement" vs. the tobacco companies

which will make for some very interesting alliances. Frankly, I would really like to see an end to "at will", though the thought of siding with the tobacco companies doesn't really thrill me.

[MADem]

14. Even At Will employees are protected if what they do doesn't violate the law

In some cases, anyway. We'd have to know more about any agreements this guy signed, if he was hired BEFORE they instituted their "don't smoke" rules, how clear their directives are, and so forth. This has less to do with tobacco, really, than it does allowing employers to regulate every fucking aspect of an employee's life. The only thing preventing that, now, is the capability (or lack thereof) of tests--what if an employer doesn't want you to eat too much saturated fat, and a test is developed that will discover you had THREE pieces of buttered toast for breakfast? Suppose Carrie Nation employs someone, and decides that they can't even have a sip of champagne at their daughter's wedding, and a test is developed that can determine that the offending sip was taken? Absent the test, the employer would not have known what Mister Rodrigues was doing on his own damned time. And for all they knew, Mister Rodrigues could have gotten his nicotine from NICORETTE gum or COMMIT lozenges. They don't want people to smoke; do they also forbid the consumption of those other nicotine delivery devices? How about nicotine water? Slippery slope, there....

http://www.massbar.org/lawhelp/legal_info/index.php?sw=3123&full_id=238&plate=print&PHPSESSID=f4774cf864dd73f99f20a95eeba5e1f6
In the United States most private sector, non-union employees are employees at will. This means that they are not hired for a specific length of time but rather are hired for some indefinite period. Either the employer or employee can terminate the employment relationship at any time without notice for almost any reason or no reason at all. In recent years, however, the ability of an employer to terminate an employee at will has been effected by laws and court decisions giving increased protection to employees.

Even if employment appears to be "at will", employment cannot be terminated if:
...The termination is under circumstances that violate public policy.
This may occur, for example, if the employee is terminated for refusing to do something that public policy forbids (for example, commit perjury or violate the law), or for doing something that public policy encourages or permits (for example taking time off for jury duty, or cooperating with a law enforcement authority's investigation of the employer). However an employee who is terminated for refusing to carry out the employer's internal policy decisions may not have a wrongful discharge claim.....In addition to these "wrongful discharge" claims, employees may have other claims arising out of the termination of their employment. These can include breach of contract, defamation (the written or verbal communication of false information about the employee), invasion of privacy (for example, the communication of private information, such as medical status, to persons not having a need to know the information), intentional infliction of emotional distress (where the employer acts in an outrageous manner; Note: workers' compensation may provide the exclusive remedy for such a claim), and unlawful interference with employment.

If successful on these claims, an employee may recover, depending on the case, back pay, front pay, or reinstatement of employment, emotional distress damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.

[seabeyond]

20. no one be fooled. it has NOTHING to do with smoking and EVERYTHING

to do with being able to provide for oneself and others at the whim of an employer

[truebrit71]

34. And that is why the employer is going to lose....

:thumbsup:

[Tempest]

11. Does the company has a written policy against cigarette smoking?

If not, they're screwed.

[sui generis]

30. they're screwed anyway

if they don't have a written policy requiring their employees eat four servings of green vegetables a day and test their blood to make sure they're complying.

Employers should trade hours of labor for money, period. It's not a paternal arrangement, unless I get to obtain their stool and piss samples too.

[Occulus]

145. Not only that, but they could get screwed in civil court by ALL their employees

Think about it. They're trying to forbid legal activity conducted on private property not owned by them, on time the employe(es) assume(s) is their own. Now,one person has been fired for performing such legal conduct, and on what he assumed is "his own time".

Along comes his employer, and fires him for that. The question of whether the employee was notified of the rule, or even agreed to it, is irrelevant: if the employer is expecting him to comport himself in a manner consistent with their wishes, the employee ought to be by definition "on company time". Since the employer is firing him for doing something legal while not at work, the company is making a prima facie admission that the employee is "on the clock" 24/7, and by maintaining such a policy, they are also admitting that their other employees are also "on the clock" 24/7.

They deserve to be paid for that time, don't you agree?

I've never heard of this argument being tried before, but I think it's time to do so; employers have far, far too much control over our private lives, and they do not deserve it. Ideally, employers would have to take whatever employees they can get... but the "fair market" doesn't apply to us lowly red shirts.

My position is, if an employer enforces any rule regarding the conduct of their employees while off company time and off company property, there should be no such thing as "off the clock" time, and employers who hold these rules should be willing to pay a 24/7 workweek, at the employee's current wage, including back pay to the date of implementation of the rule in question.

IANAL.

[NashVegas]

67. I'm Sure They Do

Scott made news about a year (?) ago when they instituted this policy.

The scream of it is that this is a lawn chemical company.

[tammywammy]

80. Lockheed Martin is moving to no tobacco in January

Both my parents work for Lockheed. They were told back in August that no tobacco will be allowed starting January 1.

The company is paying for all stop-smoking treatments (i.e. prescriptions, patch, gum, etc.).

I think if the company has a written policy and helps employees to quit, there's nothing wrong with making sure all employees are tobacco free.

[seabeyond]

85. i dont want booze. i think if they pay for booze center, then all people

should give up the booze. i want it gone now. and i feel that if the company has a policy in place there is no reason we cannot have booze free employees

[Tempest]

130. I want to see a prescription drug free workplace

If you take prescription drugs, I want to see a program where everyone is weaned from their prescription drugs.

[seabeyond]

131. i have to pay a higher insurance for employee on ritalin and cholestral

medicine. i am thinking i should fire her. would save me money

[Tempest]

132. If you really wanted to save money

Just hire illegals like the conservative CEOs do.

[Alamom]

143. I want to see a soda free work place....

(lots of calories and no nutritional value at all)
Also, this would include a caffeine free workplace so dump the coffee and tea, too.

You know very well, in the long run, sugar and caffeine will cause illness.

And nobody drinks enough water.

Everyone must drink 64 oz of water everyday or you will be fired.




:sarcasm:

[mongo]

94. You're a good little nazi-robot, aren't ya?

How about if your employer tells you when, how and who you can have sexual relations with? Would that be OK too?

[Richard Steele]

120. Well, as long as it's a WRITTEN policy...

:sarcasm:

[MADem]

12. Scotts Lawn Service...NICOTINE...BAD!!! All those fucking LAWN chemicals--GOOD!!!!!

Well, how interesting. I wonder if this is a franchise-wide policy, or if the owner of the particular franchise in question got a bug up his ass on his own.

This might be a big payday for Mister Rodrigues....

http://www.scottslawnservice.com/

[IdaBriggs]

13. Monthly Insurance for Non Smoker = $150; Smoker = $450.

My data was from 1999, and I'm confident it has gone up considerably since then. Nothing personal, but who can afford to hire a smoker? :shrug:

[brook]

18. Wonder if the insurance folks

factor in exposure to the grand Ortho products the guy handles on the job?

For the lawn that makes your neighbor green with envy.

He stands a better chance of fathering an unhealthy child or leaving said child an orphan from job related causes.

[seabeyond]

22. thats right ida, better the family goes hungry and are out on the streets

ya think an existing condition isnt higher, or a handicap, or a gender, or a family of 6 to a single person, or an older to a younger person.

is this how we are going to judge who we hire and who we dont.

let me know the rules on the discrimination, we decide is good discrimination and the bad discrimination

[IdaBriggs]

55. Look, if you want to pay extra money for someone's recreational

habits, go for it. As a small business owner, I don't. He is free to keep smoking, and he is free to find employment elsewhere.

:shrug:

[seabeyond]

60. as an employer we look for the skills and character and hire on that

trustworthiness, responsible ect.... all the rest, we leave outside of the work place. we do not discriminate

[IdaBriggs]

64. I'm a small business owner, and I used to not care.

Now I do. Everybody is different. Welcome to America! :)

ON EDIT: Are you a small business owner? Are the additional costs coming out of YOUR pocket, or are you just being "generous and tolerant" because it is with other people's money?

[seabeyond]

68. we (hubby and i, though he runs it) own a business.

we provide health insurance. i am going to ask him if the insurance discriminates the smoker and charges more. i will get back to you on that. he is in high tech computer. if he found a highly qualified employee he would be more than willing to pay the extra without a fuss i am sure. they are that hard to find. but then his style of management is different than say mine or my fathers. we are more cost conscience, less employee oriented than husband. he is a giver. scared me at first, but.... i see for whatever reason, it pays off for him in many ways and has been quite a lesson for me

now there is no way i would not hire an employee that smoked even if it cost more. i would simply give them the option of picking up the added cost or not particpate in it. i think most smokers would agree with that.

[IdaBriggs]

72. Back in 1999 we covered the insurance for "everyone" and that was

when I got the lesson on the "hidden costs of employees." I had always worked for large companies before that were able to "group" folks, so "extra issues" like smoking, etc. weren't a problem. Boy, was *THAT* a rude awakening! LOL! The mid forty-something smoking woman that we hired cost us a FORTUNE in her health insurance alone, and unfortunately, we ended up letting her go after a few months because she was completely incompetent (more my fault than hers, I guess; I am no good at managing sales staff, and they were GREAT at managing me -- I think I was the only one they could actually SELL, but it was mostly excuses.... Sigh.)

Nowadays, if the smoker wants to pick up the extra cost, I wouldn't have a problem with that, either. But if they were going to cost ME three times as much as the other (equally competent, well qualified) non-smoking guy, my practical nature kicks in, and I'd go for the less expensive (and just as good) guy. Its not nice, but at least I'm honest about it.

As I've said elsewhere, I think this is just one more good argument for a single payer health system.

:shrug:

[seabeyond]

74. Its not nice, but at least I'm honest about it............ yes you are

i noticed that in other posts of yours and thought the same, at least you are honest about it. i dont know. i am thinking our insurance doesnt seperate it as such, ... or i am wondering about the person we hire with diabetes... are they more

shhhhh dont tell anyone, lol... but hubby always had problems with sales people too. he has shifted the business away from an active sales department, and it is more intuned to his personality, but... when he had sales people he was ALWAYS getting screwed. he would end up making all the sales anyway so was easy to let that go. now he has a more fined tuned business with already customers and references.

i am going to talk to hubby tonight about the insurance though. it went up so much, 50%, what a year ago, a little more. and then went up again. kills us.

[IdaBriggs]

81. I can totally relate to your husband!!! LOL!!!

In our business, I was the "generous/stupid one" while my beloved husband (Mr. Accountant) was ready to strangle me on a regular basis! (I'm the computer geek.) Sales people are (how shall we say this delicately?) A Special Breed, and for me, they were a HUGE headache. I could go out on seven sales calls, and close six deals in one day -- and I'm a freaking PROGRAMMER. We sent the same people out on half a dozen appointments daily, and they were lucky to close ONE DEAL in two weeks! ARGH! When we finally closed the doors on that particular aspect of our business, we were $150K in debt, and two weeks away from losing our house. We spent the next three years working our catuckeses off paying off everyone we had borrowed from (family, friends, and credit cards), and were lucky enough not to have to declare bankruptcy. (I have many fabulous Ramen Noodle Recipes -- LOL!) Then, of course, we had to work to replenish our savings/retirement (which Mr. Accountant still freaks out about -- he has calculated when we'll have to start eating dog food!).

Anyway, I can't tell you what a miserable time I had at the Tax Accountant's office that year, especially when I got to see the "black and white numbers" of what my "generosity" to the Sales Staff in particular had cost us. When I remember how I talked my husband into paying one guy's salary for "just another two weeks" when he hadn't closed a deal in six prior, I just wince. (But he was such a nice guy! Smack!)

I was talking with my beloved about this, and I think what I would do nowadays is offer to pay a set amount of money toward insurance (making it a fair amount, of course), and then let the employee pick up the tab for any additional costs associated with their personal medical conditions or recreational habits. I just don't see how a small business can make it otherwise, especially when they want to treat their employees fairly. There is always a cost of doing business (taxes, workmen's comp, etc.) but MAN! Those health insurance expenses are KILLER! Get the "wrong" employee, and you could easily spend their weekly wages PLUS on their monthly health insurance premiums! Frankly, that is just crazy.

:eyes:

[seabeyond]

82. our business was like your first paragraph down to the three years, lol

it was hard. it was scary. then boom, hubby got a contracting job for three employees and made us healthy. not rich, but healthy. and he gets one of those contracts at exactly the right time when we are needing it most.

talked to him. we have a couple employees that raise our insurance as a group. our sec/acct one of them. all the pills she takes. we dont know what they are for,... we dont have the right to know, but it does increase insurance. and insurance is higher on the older employees. it isnt just smokers, it is all kinds of things that increases or reduces it

that being said, as insurance is, hubby has been discussing self insuring and increasing pay. he has been tlaking about this since after elections. one of the reasons he really wanted kerry in. so many see small business in the same league as big corps, all greedy, all lazy. not a reality.

[karlrschneider]

88. Your compassion is...uh, indescribable.

:eyes:

[IdaBriggs]

114. This isn't a discussion about compassion; its about reality.

You would be amazed at how "compassionate" the mortgage company gets when they don't receive their monthly payment -- NOT.

[mongo]

95. Because you OWN your fucking employees, right?

Better not hire anyone over 40 either, they cost more to insure too.

[IdaBriggs]

113. Why, yes, yes I do! We keep them chained in the basement, and

provide them with high quality dog food on a regular basis!

:sarcasm:

As for your "over 40" comment, congratulations on being able to see the obvious! Now you can participate in the conversations of real live grownups who have noticed that employers want YOUNGER workers, as opposed to older ones. Gee, would that have anything to do with the fact that insuring them costs more, AND they usually have more experience which should get them higher wages?

[Bake]

135. And it took an act of Congress to protect over-40 workers.

It's called the Age Discriminaton in Employment Act (ADEA). You might want to look it up.

And yes, I'm one of those over-40 types.

Bake

[zreosumgame]

25. seeing that the employee pays most of that difference, what is the issue?

[IdaBriggs]

56. The employer was apparently the one paying the costs (otherwise

they wouldn't have cared). But if the employee wants to pay the extra, that seems reasonable to me. :shrug:

[mondo joe]

126. I agree. Most fair solution: employer pays the same $ amount toward

benefits for each employee -- employee makes up the difference.

[TahitiNut]

27. So, now it's OK to fire smokers ... and deny smokers employment?

Fascinating.

[IdaBriggs]

57. As I said before, if you want to pay extra money for someone's

recreational habits, you are free to become a small business owner (if you aren't one already) and do so. Not everyone is as generous with their hard earned money as you are.

[TahitiNut]

73. Would it be OK to charge higher premiums and refuse to employ ...

... a woman who could become pregnant? After all, we hear about "lost productivity," and "increased costs" so the same criteria apply. It it's a case of "recreational habits" then perhaps it could be limited to single women who were fertile and require a medical examination. After all, it's a statistically-based decision, not an individually focuses one, so it doesn't matter whether the individual worker gets pregnant (or contracts an illness), it's all about the 'class' of person.

Perhaps GBLT workers should be charged higher premiums and denied employment? Would sexual relations among gays be regarded as a "recreational habit"?? The employment applications (and health insurance applications) might get very interesting.

Let's have a reality check, here.

No private employer is required to provide health insurance!!

There is no law at the state or federal level that mandates such a benefit. It's a choice. Indeed, many employers do not and the employees are left to pay for their own, even if the employer makes arrangements with a group plan but doesn't pay. Self-employed people pay for their own health insurance.

So, how is it that a completely voluntary choice by the employer is used as an excuse to discriminate against people for what they do legally when not working?

[IdaBriggs]

77. Since pregnancy is obviously a thing of mine at the moment, let me

assure you that it is a big deal for both the employer, and the pregnant woman. When do you tell your employer? Will you lose potential advancement because of it? What happens if you don't want to come back? Etc. These are very real issues, and while we all might publicly espouse one position, the reality of life is that every situation is different. If you want to, you can probably get at least a hundred stories on this board alone about women who experienced "employment challenges" while pregnant. And seriously GOOD LUCK on job hunting if you are "showing" -- every employer you meet KNOWS you aren't going to be around in a few months, at least for a while. People aren't stupid, and this is one of those "common sense" things.

Smokers are easy -- the additional costs they bring to a business are well documented, and its easy to find out if someone is lying about it or not. It, along with age, is one of the "major" things insurance companies look for when deciding how much to charge.

[seabeyond]

86. weight is right up there too. so weight, smoking, and age.....

wow

[IdaBriggs]

115. They get you coming and going. Sigh.

Did I mention I really want a single payer health program so this "invisible business tax" can be brought under control?

[seabeyond]

121. bah hahahah, yes you did mention it. you know, i had always been

fine with companies paying insurance. it has been the last handful of years watching the insurance companies and shifting to why a business cannot insure. many dont understand. but it is an unfortunate reality

[TahitiNut]

104. About those "well documented" costs.

You cite a monthly health care premium for smokers that's 200% higher than for a non-smoker. (As an aside, I'm wondering about tha furor over ETS. Oh well.) But the Anti-Tobacco crusaders only cite increased health care costs of 40%, not 200%. Who's getting the extra 160%? Furthermore, those "health care costs" are over a lifetime, not just between 18 and 65. In fact, much of it is obviously end-of-life health care. So, how come it's all loaded on the working population?? Furthermore, those costs include catastrophic health care. I'll bet you a dollar against a moldy old road apple that the heaalth care you can buy for $150/month won't cover those catastrophic costs, for damned sure.

So, the 'argument' about higher premiums due to health care costs just doesn't wash. Not only doesn't the cost often occur during employment, the insurance doesn't even cover the cost!

Now... the "lost productivity". Fire all your single parents! Now! We just can't have all that "lost productivity" can we??! Little Brandon has the sniffles and can't be permitted into Day Care - he'll contaminate the other kids. Mom stays home. Mom catches sniffles. Mom brings sniffles to office and spreads 'em around. Voila! "Lost productivity."


Let's ignore the fact that employees are only compensated for about 35% of the value of what they produce. (Don't argue - just look at NIBT/employee figures.) So, that "lost productivity" comes out of the owner's profits. Ouch! So bad. So sad.

[IdaBriggs]

108. This is an easy one. I've already checked it out myself, so I'm

extremely comfortable with the reality of it. I don't like it, but its real. So, instead of spouting off your nonsense, why don't you spend FIVE MINUTES doing some "real" research.

Go to Yahoo. Type in "insurance." Pick up the phone, and make a call to one of the tons of places trying to sell you health insurance. Create a "in theory" person in reasonably good health, average weight, etc. and then ask for the rates if they are SMOKERS VS NON-SMOKERS.

Then join the rest of us over here in reality land.

I am not an expert on "why the insurance companies charge as much as they do" although I suspect the correct answer is "because they can and they want to make money." If you want to spend your time reforming the insurance industry, that's great -- in the meantime, the rest of us have to pay our bills. For a small business in my industry (computer field) the number one cost is MY EMPLOYEES. Every dime that they get is money out of my pocket. When business is good (because they generate more income than they take away), life is good. When business is bad for whatever reason, these "crazy people" still want to get paid; they don't work for free (and shouldn't be expected to).

Now, as a small business owner, I've *WORKED* for free, meaning I've given up my time, energy and money "investing" in employees who *didn't* bring adequate value to my business. That is on me, and I take responsibility for it because I should have fired their asses long before we did. Apparently YOU as an independently wealthy individual can afford to give your money away, and for that, I say GOOD FOR YOU! But, since I blew it on getting born to the silver spoon crowd, we watch the pennies in my household, which means if I have the option of hiring two equally good candidates, one of whom smokes and is going to cost me more money for health insurance than his non-smoking rival, I'm going to hire the non-smoker (unless the smoker wants to cough up the extra dough for the cost of his employment).

Its not nice, but as a small business owner with a mortgage to pay who likes having a roof over her head and "crazy things" like heat/electricity, that is the way it is, and until something changes (like single payer health insurance) that is not going to change.

Will I get to the point where "fat people" and "old people" have to get cut, too? Frankly, I can see that happening in the future. Its not a pleasant thought, but it is the logical conclusion to the current insurance industry practices.

I am not "in business" to provide services for my employees. I am "in business" to pay my bills. My employees do not "volunteer" their time for fun, nor are they looking for handouts -- they want a paycheck, and they want to be able to take care of their families. I get that. If I can't make enough money to pay my bills, then I'm not going to keep paying employees, which means they are out of work, too.

You don't have to like it, but quit pretending that its about greed. Sometimes its just about paying the damn light bill!

[nonconformist]

110. I pity your employees. nt

[IdaBriggs]

116. I'll pass that along. nt

[TahitiNut]

128. Engaging in malicious personal attacks indicates a siege mentality.

(1) This is a political forum where systemic and widespread issues of exploitation and corruption are fair game. The pretense that whatever the health care industry does in concert is natural-world 'reality' that must be respected rather than a national problem to be addressed by a democratic body politic is counterproductive in the extreme.
(2) There's little question in my mind that owner-operated businesses are victims of corporate predation - victims with "Stockholm syndrome" as is clear from your rant - and their fearful compliance with those predations is a large part of the problem.

So, take your "reality land" and stick it where the sun don't shine. I repeat: There's not a damned thing that REQUIRES any employer to provide health care insurance. Nobody is "forcing" employers to fire smokers - it's the act of an employer that's part of the problem, NOT the solution.

[mongo]

133. Standing Ovation!

Yeah, if we could actually afford health insurance at all, that would cover us with our pre-existing conditions, I'm sure my 55yo stoogie smokin' employee wouldn't be a burden.

[IdaBriggs]

139. We disagree. You live in your "this is how it should be" world, and

the rest of us can live in "this is how it IS" world. If you don't want to acknowledge the REAL LIFE problems the rest of us are facing, then you can keep making up your fantasy land answers to problems that only exist in your head.

Employers are NOT trying to "control" the personal lives of their employees, as most of them have too damn much work to do in the regular sixty hour work week they put in. They are, however, trying to CONTROL COSTS.

Now, I appreciate how you keep offering the option of NOT PROVIDING HEALTH INSURANCE AT ALL, but I keep avoiding that particular straw man, because it doesn't address the real problem of how much insurance costs, who is paying for it, and what the ACTUAL costs to employers, employees, and the consumers who have the cost passed along to them in higher prices actually are, plus the fact that DECENT EMPLOYERS genuinely WANT to take good care of their employees. You want a fair world where Smokers get treated the same as everyone else? THEN MAKE SURE THEY DON'T COST MORE MONEY!!!

You don't like it that employers don't want to hire smokers? Then find a way to make Smokers not cost me (the employer) MORE MONEY. And don't pretend to be shocked when pregnant women have trouble finding work, or older workers have challenges competing against younger (cheaper) ones.

[sui generis]

28. what about for an overweight person?

What about if the company doesn't offer insurance?
What about if you opt out of the insurance?

What about if you have a family history of cancer?

Smoking is not the ultimate evil, and the rights of employers stop at the emergency exit sign.

Anything else is just crazy. Can you imagine being told to lose weight or lose your job? To stop dyeing your hair because it could cause scalp cancer, or lose your job? To stop wearing contacts because of the risk of eye infection? To stop skiing, swimming in lakes, or to work out more?

When your employer requires a piece of your body to verify that you're being a good employee at home on your own time, it's time to stop those kinds of employers.

[IdaBriggs]

62. I disagree with you. If your habits are going to cost *ME* money,

then I have a right to some say about them. Smokers cost more money, even with something so small as life insurance. ($250,000 in a ten year term life insurance policy for a healthy 40 year old SMOKER is *LITERALLY* DOUBLE the price for the same policy for a healthy NON-SMOKER.)

Smoking is an optional recreational thing. If you want to do it, feel free, but since I am free to hire/fire whoever I want, I'm going to hire the guy who doesn't cost me thousands per year EXTRA in health insurance costs. If you are willing to have money taken out of your pay (meaning, you bring home less money than a non-smoker) so you can indulge in nicotine use, that's on you. But your habits shouldn't come out of *my* pocket.

And, by the way, I can see the slippery slope where employers don't want to hire folks with medical problems that include obesity, especially if they are small, self insured companies. It also makes sense that employers would want to hire HEALTHY people, so yes, I can see where weight discrimination would be a problem.

This is probably just one more good argument in favor of "single payer insurance." Businesses are in the habit of doing what they can to minimize their costs so they can make more money, and not hiring smokers is a good way of doing that. Its not nice, but it is a reality.

:shrug:

[TahitiNut]

103. YOU are not REQUIRED to provide paid heath care to employees.

Again, how about other statistically more expensive populations? Women of child-bearing age?

The health care industry has gotten TOTALLY out of control. Nationalize Health care.

[raccoon]

117. Yep. And you could say the same about older workers.

"I can see the slippery slope where employers don't want to hire folks with medical problems that include obesity...

This is probably just one more good argument in favor of "single payer insurance."

Let's see. Older workers get downsized because they make "too much" money.

Then people don't want to hire them because they cost more to insure. Hell, even if the employer doesn't offer insurance, most employers don't want to hire them just because they're older.

Sounds like older folks can't win for losing, doesn't it?

[truebrit71]

33. Well judging by the huge numbers of fat bastards being hired everyday...

....wouldn't it be more prudent to tell employees what they can and cannot eat...?

[IdaBriggs]

66. Weight and other health issues are undoubtedly going to keep

getting attention. In the meantime, smokers are easily identified risks, but yes, I would say that other health issues will garner more attention in the future, especially when employers are asked to cover the insurance needs of an aging population.

Its not nice, but its reality. :shrug:

[Scout1071]

44. Yea...while we are at it, let's start firing fat people. They are expensive too.

Maybe they should be tested for fat or sugar?

[IdaBriggs]

69. Actually, I think its been happening, but its usually a lot more subtle.

Insurance companies are in business to make money, and as a small business owner, I don't want to work for free, either.

Life isn't fair, and this is a problem that needs to be solved. I've said before that this is an excellent argument for a single payer health system, and I'll stick by that statement.

[Bake]

136. Ah hell, why not just screw 'em all?

Why argue for single payer? They're costing you money (money, mind you, that you are not required to spend since you are not required to provide health insurance - a fact that TahitiNut has raised repeatedly but you continue to avoid), why give a damn about them at all? Screw 'em. You're not in business to provide charity. When it comes to your money, Ida, frankly you sound just like a Republican. Go the rest of the way ... just say "screw 'em."

Bake

[IdaBriggs]

140. I am avoiding TahitiNut's ridiculous straw man argument because

it isn't relevant to the case at hand, nor is it relevant to me. If I am understanding this person's viewpoint, EVERYONE should get screwed out of insurance if it isn't being provided to EVERYONE, regardless of cost.

Since I think that is one of the stupidest things I've ever read, I have not bothered to reply to it, nor will I.

Most of us don't have infinite money, we have to make choices regarding wages/benefits, and not all of them are going to be popular. If you don't like *my* choices, don't come work for me (or in this case, the company in the original post).

One of the reasons I am in favor of single payer is the idea that an employer contributes the same number of dollars per employee into one fund, and then EVERYONE gets insurance. No extra charges for Smokers, Fat People, Old People -- WHATEVER. It creates a level playing field where good employers can take good care of all of their people without having to tell them "you are on your own when it comes to health insurance." Another reasonable option is "the employer will chip in XXX dollars for you, and you can pay the extra costs based on your personal circumstances" which usually translates to a lot of people not having insurance (especially the ones who need it the most) do to cost.

One of the most frustrating things I've been reading in this thread is what I can only refer to as a "teenage" mentality. "My evil parents are SOOOO controlling!" which ends up being "My evil employer is SOOOO controlling!" GROW UP! If you want to smoke as a recreational hobby, there are consequences -- your benefits cost more money! With insurance costs going through the roof, that makes you less desirable as an employee. Its easy to pick on smokers because their hobby is an optional/recreational one, while it is natural to feel more sympathetic towards someone whose health costs aren't self inflicted (because they are going through natural aging, for example, or have "challenges" in their family health history).

But the persecution complex is just infuriating!

And calling me a Republican is just ... laughable, but if you want to believe that, go for it. It was one of the funniest things I've read today, and I think I'll start a new thread about it!

[Bake]

141. I've heard Republicans say exactly the same things.

That's all I'm saying. I mean honestly, look back at all your comments in this thread - you sound just like a Republican. And besides, it's so easy to demonize smokers.

So is the only factor whether the risk is self-inflicted? Insurers don't care whether it's self-inflicted or not. Life insurers rate an applicant up if there is a family history of cancer, or heart disease, etc. They don't care that it's not self-inflicted, they care only about the cold hard statistics.

But the fact is, you're NOT required to pay for any health insurance for any of your employees. I suspect that if you do, you do so because you CHOOSE to do so (not out of charity but because the marketplace demands it, and if you don't offer it no one will want to work for you). But that's a CHOICE you make.

Most employers these days pay the same amount for health insurance per employee, and it doesn't cover the whole premium anyway. If I smoke and work for you, I'll gladly pay the difference. Just keep your nose out of my private life when I'm not on your clock.

Bake

[dogday]

70. Next it will be diabetics, people with allergies,

people who are overweight, people who chew, people who smoke cigars, people who drink? Think that could happen? Wonder if said company instigated a non-alcohol policy because it also causes health problems, legal problems if driving under the influence and at times death... Would this be acceptable? That could sure make the cost of insurance go up....

You can ride that slippery slope all you want, me, I would rather plant my feet on solid ground..

[seabeyond]

78. i dont like drunks, i dont like booze, my people die of alcoholism

we dont even know what one line of our family genetically hold as a killer cause they never make it to that, they always die from alcohol one way or another. i hate the shit. everything about it. people that drink and the way they behave.... eeeew. i want it banned. i dont want to pay for the cost of a drunk. they should be without a job. not feed the family. on the street

ya

what about the boozer.

that is someone i can have a problem with

oh... i know. if i refuse my brother a job i know it will do nothing for his addiction just make all of his and his childrens life worse. i know that when he goes to work, he is a valued worker and well worth his pay. and no he does not tend to mess a lot of days. surprisingly the alcholic makes it to work more regularly than most. and i know this is his chosen journey in life, chasing his particular demons and will leave him to it. i will simply love him anywy and value the beauty he is and feel compassion for the sad that he is.

[proud2BlibKansan]

84. Where do they get those numbers?

I am a smoker and I have been sick exactly ONE TIME in 10 years. I take no medications. There is no way my employer can claim my health care is more expensive than a non smoker.

A co-worker is seriously over weight, diabetic, misses work a LOT and is hospitalized every couple years for diabetic complications. Her doctor has been telling her to lose weight for 10 years. She doesn't smoke.

So what's next? Will she be fired because she is too fat and her health care is too expensive?

Don't you guys see where this is going? First the smokers, then the fat people, then the ones with a history of depression and on and on.

Nothing personal, but who can afford to hire a fat person? Or a diabetic? Or someone whose kid has ADD?

[seabeyond]

87. where do they get the numbers? it is agenda studies to allow all this

simple as that

[Greyhound]

99. So, in your mind the problem is with the person, not the insurance company?

I am so glad I'll never have to work for someone like you. How can you call yourself liberal, or you one of those "raygun Democrats"?

[IdaBriggs]

109. Sigh. No, the problem is REALITY. If you want to complain about

the insurance companies, that's fine, but REALITY is that a smoker is currently going to cost me (the small business owner) more money to insure, which makes them less desirable as an employee.

Look at it this way -- two equally good employees, with excellent credentials walk in the door. Both want the job, but one "insists" on getting paid $5,000 more than the other one. Which would YOU hire?

Or, bring it closer to home -- two neighborhood kids come to your door asking to rake your leaves. Both would do an excellent job, and you know they are "good people." One requests twenty dollars, and the other wants thirty. Which do you hire?

[Bonescrat]

127. I tell one to do half, the other to do the other half...

And give them both $15.

I as the "employer" decide the payment. They as the "employee" decide if that's enough compensation for them.

I am subject to this exact scenario many times every winter.

And since this scenario is not "at will" employment but a Firm Fixed Price one time job, and the 15 yr old kid down the street is not going to request health insurance, this is really not relevant to the topic. I couldn't care less if the kid is a smoker and takes 2 hours to do the job or a non-smoker and takes 1 hour to do the job. He or she is going to get the same amount either way.

[Greyhound]

129. *sigh* No, the problem is too many employers are unwilling to do what

is right, and just go along being dictated to by insurance companies.

I have been a SBO for most of my life and, like any other business, insurance companies live and die by their clients demands. If company A tries to hold you up for exorbitant fees, you talk to company B, and then C, D, and E, you join a small business alliance that negotiates with the insurance companies until you find one that offers an equitable solution. They exist in every part of the country and if you can't find it, you are simply not looking.

[TahitiNut]

134. Precisely. But it's "easier" to merely pass it along to another victim.

And claim you're "forced" to do it.

(I wonder if the same people claim that the lowest on the economic ladder AREN'T "forced" to join the military to get health care and educational benefits.)

[Greyhound]

137. Yep, since most of my professional life has been as a small business

owner or advocate for them, I've dealt with so many Ida's that I'm very familiar with their MO, and you've hit the nail right on the head.

ETA: if anybody deserves sympathy it is their employees.

[SEONA]

102. So according to your information

anyone in a high risk group could be subject to the same. Once there are no smokers, what would the next highest risk group be? The overweight? Could we possibly see overweight people fired in the future? What about those with genetic tendencies toward cancer? Could they be fired? Should they be permitted to become parents? Maybe forced sterilization is in order?

My point is we all have health items that keep us from being perfect. To excuse someone from being fired due to items that have no affect to the quantity or quality of work the person is producing can lead to greater problems.

[IdaBriggs]

112. Yes, this is a slippery slope, and Smokers are very easy targets.

As I've said before, people with weight issues already face these kinds of problems, but frankly, its probably more subtle. And you are making a mistake with your argument that many other people are also making --

This isn't about how things SHOULD BE, but rather about how things ARE, and insurance COSTS MORE for Smokers (and yes, I get that overweight people cost more, too, but Smoking is a recreational habit, and its easily picked out).

Look, you might not like this, but PRETEND for one second that everyone in your company could automatically get a 25% raise in take home pay if three guys in your office quit smoking. Would you be willing to keep making less money so these guys can smoke?

ON EDIT: Are you willing to take away from YOUR FAMILY to support their right to smoke?

Is there a solution? Yes! Find a way to make Smokers NOT COST ME MORE MONEY. Then do the same for Overweight People, and people with other health problems.

And if that sounds like I'm an advocate for a Single Payer Health Program, that's because I AM!!!

[Dastard Stepchild]

144. I see where you are going with this...

Wonder if that is what they were thinking. If so, seems like it would have been more humane to let the employee offer to pay the additional cost of the premium. :)

I do know that it can be quite an expensive difference though. However... many things make insurance expensive for an individual. I don't smoke and I am very healthy, but my insurance is actually more costly then a few of the younger smokers at my husband's place of employment because I am of fertile age. Of course, that may be because insurance is unaware of their smoking. :)

Insurance, though, is a large factor for small employers, so I would be interested to see if this was the case for this company.

[lectrobyte]

15. It's all about control. Expect more crap like this as workers get

more and more squeezed.

[Beelzebud]

16. But remember. There is no slippery slope.

Even though they are now trying to ban trans-fat from restaurants in a few cities.

I'm tired of control freaks.

Keep America FREE.

[seabeyond]

21. d*mn straight. the obvious, the logical, the factual... oh strawman

argument. no slippery slope.... BULLSHIT

i am pissed

none of these laws are going to hurt me for a number of reasons, .... and i am so pissed and disgusted and outraged that "we", the fuckin people, allowed this to happen. no one but ourselves to blame.

V comes to mind

[BoneDaddy]

24. I think there is a difference

Smoking is a choice.

Eating transfats is often being unaware of that and unless the food processor tells you that, you cannot make a conscious choice.

That said, I hope this guy sues for millions and gets it.

[zreosumgame]

26. really? sit an 8 year old in front of

a Big Mac and a pile of tofu. Let us know which one the kid chooses...

[BoneDaddy]

39. Um

how is what you wrote even connected to what I wrote.

My point about transfats is that people don't have an opportunity to make a "conscious" choice because they really don't know what is in it, whereas the smoker makes a conscious choice because we have been educated out the ass on smoking.

I think it is high time we look at the "foods" we have been given and allowed to make that same choice.

[brook]

47. Since about the time man first stood upright...

mothers have been exhorting their children to "eat your vegetables". I've never heard a mother say "finish those french fries or else..."

I also doubt that there is a day that passes without an article in everyone's daily rag about calories, bulemia, anorexia, excercise,vitamins,a new fad diet, a new fad slim-while-you-slurp pill - oh - and fat in the diet.

Are the asses too large to absorb the education you mention? Or are they willfully choosing the double burger, extra cheese, large order of fries on the side and a choc shake?

Maybe stem cell research could help us find the 'personal autonomy gene' and turn it off, thus saving the nanny state?

[seabeyond]

53. everybody knows what the candy bar does to them.... even my kids

it is all bullshit.

[MadHound]

48. Eating transfats and other unhealthy food is a choice too

Every single food item is required by law to list the ingriedients. Sure, some of the labeling is confusing, but if you educate yourself, you too can forego transfat.

Then there is the whole issue of people who choose to lead a sedentary lifestyle while eating a high calorie diet, with or without transfats. That again is a choice, and the person who follows such a lifestyle is choosing to most likely cut their life short as surely as a smoker does.

Therefore, it is rather hypocritical for this company to punish one group of people, smokers, for the choice that they made, while not punishing another group of people, the obese, for the lifestyle chocie they made. Logically, if you are going to discriminate against one chosen lifestyle, you have to discriminate against all unhealthy lifestyles.

And you know what's really scary? If this whole refusal to hire smokers bit goes bigtime, guess who their going to come after next? Yes, that's right, the overweight people in our society.

[seabeyond]

54. because you argue the point so well, you know... pound is not the

only decider if one is chosing a healthy lifestyle. i know a lot of itsy bitsy teeney weeney people that chose sedentary lifestyles and dont eat well, yet... i do know people that are overweight that exercise, walk keep body moving and though they may eat the unhealthy, eat an abundance of healthy and might be said to be more healthy than their little counterpart

[MadHound]

58. Thank you for pointing out the exceptions to the rule

Yes, there are people on both extremes. However the overwhelming majority of people who have a sedentary lifestyle, and eat a high calorie diet are overweight. And their excess weight is a direct result of the lifestyle choice that they made, much as is the case with smokers.

[seabeyond]

59. what i am saying, i dont want to be a part of the world that decides

about another. i have not tended toward that even young, i am certainly not for it now that i am old enough to know we are ALL flawed. i often use the word bullshit with this kinda conversation... so i will stick with it. it is all bullshit....

i wasnt being sarcastic when saying you argue it well, you do. i agree with you. i was simply taking it further

[MadHound]

61. Sorry, my bad.

School, stress, and impending drive home through sleet and snow has thrown off my (non)sarcasm meter.

Peace:hi:

[seabeyond]

63. impending drive home through sleet and snow

one of the many reasons i feel really blessed being a stay at home with this weather. i use to hate the drive home, always relieved when i made it. not to mention du's combative ways, lol

peace back atcha

[BoneDaddy]

107. Did you read what I wrote

or just gut respond? I support this man's bid to sue the company and I think what the company did was ridiculous, I just don't think it is as cut and dry when it comes to the responsibility of corporations to act ethically when providing goods that might be harmful to consumers and those that do not need to be held accountable.

[AngryAmish]

31. Other employees should sue for overtime

When you are paying me to behave in a certain way then I will.

[WI_DEM]

37. I'm not a smoker, but this is outrageous! What he does off duty

is his own business, and since when is nicotine an illegal drug?

[Zhade]

40. He should win, for two reasons:

1) Employers don't fucking own us off-hours;

2) random drug testing is wrong, and by all rights should be ruled unConstitional.

[Ikonoklast]

83. Random drug testing can save lives

I am subject by Federal law to random drug testing, and I accept it as a condition of employment. I am also subject to stringent health qualificatons as to allowable blood preassure, among other qualifications. Currently I am on a one-year waiver because my blood preassure was on the higher side of the scale, and must increase my cardiovascular regimen and restrict my diet or guess what?

No medical card, no job. That is not intrusion, that is safety.

If you think that the pilot that had six scotches on his off-duty hours and shows up in the morning to fly you home with a blaring hangover is NOT IMPAIRED, even though his BAC level is close to normal, go ahead and get right on that flight.

I'll wait for the next one.

[mongo]

96. Straw man

So, smoking a cigarette at home on your own time is the same as having six scotches before piloting a commercial aircraft?

Last I checked, cigarettes didn't seriously impair your ability to spread lawn chemicals, or drive a lawn mower.

[Ikonoklast]

97. Read the post I replied to, please

You are distorting my response.

If you agree not to engage in certain activities as a condition of employment, then you have no leg to stand on if in violation of that agreement. I agree not to smoke; then my employer agrees to hire me.

If you cannot abide by a contract, why enter into it knowing you are going to break it?

[seabeyond]

98. i believe this policy was implemented after employment. n/t

[mongo]

100. First, the guy was hired before the company made the policy.

Second, if every employer in your field has a certain policy (like drug testing), do you really have a choice when you enter into a contract?

Look, if you're a professional driver, or pilot, or train engineer, then there may be some reasonable expectation to pee in a cup.

But if you drive a keyboard all day long, then drug testing is a violation of your privacy -- and one you really don't have a choice to turn down in Amerika.

[Ikonoklast]

105. Yes, you have a choice

If you don't want to pee in a cup, don't. There is no law on Earth that can make you. You just will not be offered employment. It would be time to reconsider your career path.

[Cleita]

46. Good I hope more people do this.

Years ago an employer of mine tried to fire me for smoking off the job or rather he was trying to threaten me to make me quit, something I did do some years later. He wasn't paying for my health insurance, I was, so he didn't have a leg to stand on. I told him I would take him to court if he pressured me on this. I told him I didn't smoke all day while at work and not even on my breaks or lunch, but what I lit up when I got off work in my own home was my business and had nothing to do with my ability to do my job.

[JacksonWest]

51. Good. Sue their pants off.

[TahitiNut]

76. NOTE: No Private Employer is REQUIRED To Offer Health Care Insurance!

There is absolutely nothing that mandates that this employer offer health care coverage to their employees. This is a choice -- one which the employer could make in a variety of ways. Thus, the various premiums charged by any group insurance provider can and will differ ... and the employer could EASILY choose to subsidize a fixed amount of that premium and pass the rest of the premium cost on to the employee.

It's an excuse. It's bogus. Fuck 'em.

[Sequoia]

79. Smoking on the job:

[LeftishBrit]

89. Can they actually do this????

There seem to be at least two very bad practices here. One is punishing someone in the workplace for something legal that he is doing outside of work. I don't see how smoking outside of work affects his ability to do his job. The second thing is that no one seems to have given Rodriguez any warning in advance that this was the rule. Employers should not have the right to suddenly claim that something is against the rules when they haven't made this clear in advance. Totally capricious! I hope he wins the case, and find it unbelievable that the employers could have acted like this.

[RamboLiberal]

90. As much as I hate smoking - I hate this kind of crap worse

And if companies get away with it, as so many of you have pointed out - what's next? Alcohol? Fat? Age? Can they ban you from risky activities, i.e. motorcycles, skydiving, climbing, whitewater kayak, etc?

Many of you have also made a great point that he worked with lawn chemicals which are probably just as toxic if not more than the cigarette smoke he inhaled.

What people do off the job should be none of the companies business.

[greccogirl]

91. It's ALL going to be next. Fat Police, Drinking Police, Smoking

Police, Exercise Police, Food police - you name it.

[Rosemary2205]

92. Universal health coverage will solve all this shit.

the company didn't fire him because they want to control his life. They fired him because they want to control their healthcare costs.

[IdaBriggs]

118. BINGO!!! Yeah!!! THANK YOU!!!

You are completely correct!!!

:woohoo: :yourock:

[Bake]

138. But apparently to control their costs

They HAD to control his life. I beg to differ with those who say :yourock:

Bake

[hamletsophelia]

101. Well serves him right

It's killing him, he should have tossed out the cancer sticks years ago, to sue is stupid beyond words, he'll never win!

[seabeyond]

106. i say shoot him. why F* around, shruggin n/t

[maine_raptor]

111. Could he then sue for Lead Poisoning? n/t

[seabeyond]

123. might be a mute point, just sayin, ..... n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

122. On what legal basis?

If he signed a contract agreeing not to smoke, and then smoked, then I don't see that he has any legal basis for complaining.

There arguably ought to be laws restricting that kind of clause in a contract, but so far as I know there aren't, so I don't see what case he has.

[gollygee]

124. Companies should not be able to fire people for

for doing something legal when they aren't working. Companies do not OWN their employees. Employees *work for* their employees and therefore companies should only be able to fire employees based on what they do while on the company's dime, assuming whatever it is is legal.

This is a great example of why health care shouldn't be linked to employment.

[mondo joe]

125. I'd love to see a precedent forbidding termination for things done on your own

time - certainly legal things.