National news, Scotts Co., Smoke and you ARE fired

[Jill]

I still don't feel a company should do this, but we are talking about something that people do by choice, and something they can choose to stop doing. I'm sure it's very, very hard to quit smoking, but it is possible and is a choice that's available to all smokers. Unlike people with small children, you really can't quit the kids. I would think if I smoked, the threat of loosing my job which is pretty immediate compared to the fact that it kills you eventually, would make me really try hard to quit. The flip side of this controversy is for the employees who do choose to quit, this rule may be one of the best things that ever happened to them.

 

[Frankie]

Then you all will be up in arms but it will be too late because the door will be open

Unlike people with small children, you really can't quit the kids

But you can make a choice of to have them or not.

What if you go to work somewhere and are told, as long as you work here, you can not have children?

My point is how very endless this could end up being. Then no one would be working.

 

[Triggy&Blue&Daisy Too]

I do smoke, but I am not a rude smoker. I even asks guest in my own house if they mind. We smoke in on small area of our home, or outside.

The above is in my original post,,,,,,,,,,,,obviously you missed it.

It amazes me how some people can make comments about other people, THEY DO NOT KNOW, AND KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.

My habit is not important to me, I have quit a number of times, including each time I was pregnant,

what IS important to me, IS MY RIGHTS.

No I didn't miss it, What are they supposed to say?

and "

If you do not like my habit,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,DO NOT COME TO MY HOUSE WHERE I LIVE PERSONALLY!!!!!!"
Well that had nothing to do with knowing you or not just a response to this snotty off the wall comment. It wasn't personal until YOU made it so.

And as for rights yours end where mine begin, just like the health of your unborn child. Just like mothers are prosecuted for doing crack while pregnant I'd not be against them doing the same to smokers. It is not the innocuous, victimless habit some seem to think.

You can defend it all you want.

 

[shminifancier]

Sounds like the same reasons that so many people don't want to have the NAIS program for animals Hmmmmm. And McDonald's has already stopped the Super Sizing things for health reasons..Many schools are not letting soda pop bought for health reasons, You can't even Buy Chocolate Whole Milk anymore for health reasons, You can't even But Whole Butter Milk anymore the kind that even had butter chunks in it, Why? Because of the concern over health reasons..And I may chew but I do not Spit, so nobody gets any Pollution from me, and on a side note/: I don't have worms either

: So many things in the past years have stopped because of health reasons.. And why do you think R J Reynolds owns about 40% of the OTHER food stuffs in supermarkets? Because smoking and buying tobacco products is on the decline Big Time... And of course what R J Reynolds does not own, the rest is owned by Miller Brewing Company~!

 

[Jill]

As a non smoker and someone who has never smoked, to me the choice of having kids vs. the choice to smoke are so extremely different.

To compare apples to apples, you already smoke, Jane Doe already has kids... Isn't it easier for you to quit smoking than Jane to quit the kids?

Oranges to oranges, you want to start smoking and Jane wants to start having kids... which is the easier thing to deny yourself?

 

[Frankie]

Oranges to oranges, you want to start smoking and Jane wants to start having kids... which is the easier thing to deny yourself?

For me, I'd give up smoking before giving up sex. Uhhhhhhh, kids.

I am only saying, BOTH should be my right.

I was hoping this would be a fight fFOR rights, a fight over smoking itself and the health risks, your right to not be around it, might be another thread.

 

[Jill]

As an employer, I'd be more likely to let you take a smoke break than a .... oh never mind :lol:

 

[kaykay]

jill i know you think its far fetched but its not. The last job i was hired for i was asked POINT BLANK how old my children were and how many i had. When i replied that my girls had moved out to college and the boys were teenagers the manager gave a huge sigh of relief and said it was a good thing or he couldnt hire me if I had "babies" at home. he laughed about it and told me how he would NEVER hire anyone with kids under 12 as they miss too much work.

Now I know my rights and I know its illegal to even ask someone if they have kids or how many. On the other hand I needed the job so I didnt fight it. So its already going on but pretty soon it will be LEGAL to do it.

Kay

 

[Jill]

Oh I *know* it is not far fetched because when I've hired people for the business I own, I have preferred those without small children. I am sure this is not fair and not legal, but I need employees to be there and work when they are supposed to be there. Luckily, the more mature women w/ grown or nearly grown children have also been the ones that were best for all the legitimate reasons, too.

 

[kaykay]

Jill im glad you have the guts to admit you do it and yes it is illegal to ask for age or children etc when applying for a job. For sure you are not alone. So you see employers getting rid of all parents of young children is DEFINATELY within the realm of possiblity. Or maybe you have worked somewhere for 5 years and decide to get pregnant and they decide to fire you for it?? Right now thats illegal but I can see where it wont be for long.

Anytime you willingly give up your right to do whatever on your own personal time be it the government or an employer you are giving up a lot more then just that one right. Because if one is good more is better.

Like I said next time maybe it will be owning horses?? I know a lot of people that miss work due to a mare foaling, sick horse etc.

 

[Jill]

Well, as I said right from the start, it shocks me that a company would go to this extreme, however, we are talking about something that is detrimental to a person's health and is in fact deadly. Most of the things we are comparing smoking to are life enhancing vs. damaging.

And, we're talking about employee rights, but remember, business owners (all businesses have owners) also have rights and should be able to do what's best for their business, which in turn, is usually what's best for their own families.

 

[minimama]

So, if you are a smoker and you don't like that policy, don't work there. Pretty simple.

 

[KrisP]

Wow it's sad to see this turn in to a personal attack.

Frankie I see exactly what you are talking about, this story is all over the news here as Scotts is in Ohio.

It IS a matter of what will they take/change/demand next, this is just a foot in the door, what will be next, diabetes? weight? asthma? children?

And yes, many business DO already base hiring on children, I worked for a corporation for years that if you applied and were pregnant or had anything that clued them in to small children you did not get hired, oh they'd find another reason to tell you that you didn't fit the position, but it was based on children.

I for now am not looking for employment off the farm because I know that it wouldn't be fair to employers if I had to take time off for animals, so for now I scratch what living I can off the farm.

Krisp

 

[Anne]

I am aware of companies that won't hire smokers, companies that won't hire anyone with small children, companies that won't hire you if you are overweight, and an emplyoyers who won't hire if you don't fit "their image" in appearance. A guy that won't hire a woman who comes in wearing "too much" makeup and a cologne they consider "obnoxious.

The difference is that only so far as a "rule" are the smokers being singled out for firing. Though I have heard on one occasion that an overweight person was fired, for that reason though it was not the 'stated" reson on the termination.

OK companies can hire or fire as they choose, who they choose whenever they choose. Most are considered "at will" employees with no union or contract, so they are truly at :the will" of their employer.

Some perfumes and colognes people find obnoxious and very offensive, (allergies)some people are grossed out by their obese co-worker, some people are very upset by the time missed by co-workers with small children, others have to carry the load.

Some employees come back from lunch, and a few drinks, even more than once a week.

Someone is going to object to SOMETHING you do with your life.

They're going to say it's not good for you or the people around you.

How much should your company control employees personal lives is a very good question.

 

[Horse Hugs]

I think any employer has the right to restrict certain habits during work hours but what people do when they are off work is their own business. I agree that companies have higher costs with insurance nowadays, but you can't just single out one group and I think most smokers pay a higher premium so they are already being penalized. As an employer, I would be more concerned with an accident- prone individual than a smoker. How about requiring all hospitalization and medical records before hiring someone to make sure they don't go to the Emergency room often. I also probably wouldn't want to hire anyone over weight, either, as they are so much more of a health risk than a slim, fit person. I would make sure that they have always been faithful to their spouse because there are so many dieases that they could get if they are sleeping around. There are a lot worse things than smoking.This becomes pretty absurd when you start looking at all the possibilities.

I am not a smoker and I do find the habit repulsive, but this is only my opinion and I respect anyones right to smoke if they so chose. I would have to lose 40 pounds, give up chocolate, exercise more and never drink before I would be in any position to pass judgement on any one else's bad habits. :bgrin

 

[Scoopiedoo]

I have NOT read all of the posts, nor do I really intend to, but it is MY opinion(a statistically backed one at that) that obese people largely outnumber smokers, so are they next? Are companies going to start paying for gastric bypass surgery to make obese people thinnner? I think not, yet their medical expenses are equal to or higher than that of the average smoker.... I think civil rights are at stake here and if we don't get a voice soon, it will be forced surgeries, don't eat, or lose your job. Please! Yes, I know smoking is a hot topic, but when it is abolished, they WILL move on to something else, like obesity or maybe things like anemia, or diabetes. Where will the people stand up and draw the line??? It's looking to me that the "Land of the Free" is becoming less free by the day and that scares me to death, it should scare all of us.

Jodi

 

[Jenn]

I applaud Scotts for taking a stand!

We are in the process of hiring a new employee and I personally gave extra points to anyone who fessed up to clean living. Three of our ten employees are smokers and it drives me bonkers everytime they stop in the middle of what they are doing to go have a cigarette.

Non-smokers are more efficient workers. If I could, I'd dock the pay of every smoker in the company because they're not worth as much as the non-smokers.

 

[backwoodsnanny]

I have read with interest this entire thread and I think it is just one more way for big business to infringe on the rights of the masses. Smoking is just the vice of choice at this point but I do think that there are other vices that will come under fire soon. Obesity is rampant in the USA. So it would follow that this would be the next vice that is targeted and I cant imagine that there will be such a laid back attitude when that is the vice that is targeted. Yes they are taking soda out of the schools but what happens when they take the soda out of your home? Or chocolate or twinkies. This is what Frankie was originally talking about before this ended up being a p - - - - - - contest. As for smokers losing more time than non smokers or smokers wasting more time on a job than non smokers this may be true in some instances. But I timed the eaters in my workplace when our state started on the smokers. The eaters waste far more time going to and from the snack bar than the smoker who took 7 minutes to smoke a cigarette. The over eaters at least in my workplace also missed far more time than the smokers did and there were more of them so it would follow that their health costs were much higher. Its only a matter of time before the smokers are gone from the workplace but rest assured that the over eaters may well be next.

 

[Anne]

So, if you have a smoker within the company who has been honest and working for 5, 10 or something years, The general opinion seems to be that their life doesn't really matter beyond the smoking, they should be fired.

Just like the overweight person I am aware of, over 5 yrs with the company of honest reliable work, didn't matter, they were fired.

Nothing that is contributed mattered beyond these facts.

Smokers and overweight people should not be employed unless they "change" to suit "you".

Any person who costs the "system" money above what "soneone" decides is "average.

So the money and financial statement is clearly worth more.

Ok now they are unemployed, now what?

Now what is the financial impact on the health insurance system, medicaid, medicare and social security, seems there are a large number of what would be contributing members of our society no longer contributing.

And there are still a large number of problems yet unsolved.

I wonder what else all those who "know best" will come up with. How many changes we will have to make to all become "the same", politically correct "humans" that won't offend anyone, is that possible?

Really, this goes beyond the blind "hatred" that is out there for an individual who smokes.

 

[Triggy&Blue&Daisy Too]

There are already things in place you CAN'T do on the job and rightly so. Many companies can and do fire if someone is on a rehab agreement for alcohol and partake in it off the job. Some companies just outright fire an alcoholic without even bothering to help and more and more are tired of footing the bill. At least Scott is giving them a chance to rehab and kick the habit but if smoking means more to you than a job then that's the way it goes.

It's not that cut and dried with a food addict because they cannot just stop consuming the object that causes their addiction while it IS possible for someone to never take another drink or smoke cigarette again.

And for the record (statistically) it's a rare smoker who doesn't cost a company an inordinant amount in both time lost thorough illness and unproductivity. If people want to cripple industry to preserve some percieved right then don't whine when jobs go elsewhere. It's all about the bottom line.