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

[Horse Hugs]

Not everybody has a lot of choices as to where to work. So, it's not as simple as some of you make it sound. If working for Scott was the only job you could get in your town, county, state- whatever, and you tried really hard to quit but you couldn't- then what are you supposed to do?

As I said before- I am not a smoker and I don't like smoking, but I do understand that it is a very hard addiction to quit. I think the majority of people that smoke (except for teens and a small minority) don't prefer to smoke- they just have been unable to quit.

I don't smoke, but I am over-weight. I have been struggling with this for the last few years. I know with my MS that it would be so much better for me to be thin again, but despite how much I would like to lose weight, I can't seem to stick to a diet. I am lucky that I don't have to work for someone else, but if I was suddenly thrown into the work force and was told I could only be hired if I was 40 pounds lighter- I would be in big touble.

I still think that what people do in their own homes after work should not be controlled by an employer.

 

[minimama]

Hey KrisP, what if your employees do those drugs in their own homes on their own time? Who are they hurting, isn't it their right? By giving drug tests you are taking away their rights to do drugs in their own homes.

 

[KrisP]

Yes, there's a HUGE difference unless the law changed in the last few hours and drugs that are tested for suddenly became legal, I know they sure haven't in our area. I don't see cocaine, opium, speed, crack, heroin, marajauna becoming legal any time soon, and these substances impair your abilities.

These employees have to answer to the FRA (Federal Railroad Administration) and the guidelines are VERY strict. Did you know that every single time there is a car/train incident that the train crews are automatically pulled and tested? These are hard working men and women that dread nothing more than someone not paying attention at a crossing, it's their worst nightmare. Regardless of why the accident happened it's NOT the crews fault, they can NOT just stop a train on a dime, but they are the ones that have to answer for it. Any trace of drugs and the Railroad would get nailed to the wall.

Again, this isn't about smoking, this is about a persons rights to do what they want when they want on their own time.

Krisp

 

[minimama]

You don't have to justify testing to me, I am all for it. I support it totally!!!! But, the point is the same. What they do in their own home is their business and you are infringing on their rights by testing.

Just making a point. I am all for drug testing but I am also all for a companies right to make their own policies.

 

[KrisP]

You don't have to justify testing to me, I am all for it. I support it totally!!!! But, the point is the same. What they do in their own home is their business and you are infringing on their rights by testing.

Just making a point. I am all for drug testing but I am also all for a companies right to make their own policies.

And I'm for a persons right to privacy to do what they want within the law on their own time and in their own home, give them an inch and they take a mile.

:

krisp

 

[kaykay]

mini that doesnt appy here because tobacco is LEGAL. drugs are not. i can see a company testing for something that is illegal and firing you for doing that.

As for smokers being lousy workers. My office manager spent half her day on the internet which seems like a lot of our forum members also do while they are at work

: I can guarantee you she spent more time playing on the internet then i ever spent smoking. LOL

Anyway as said previously this isnt about why people should quit. All smokers myself included know they should quit. Its about having an employer tell you what you can or cannot do on your own time.

 

[jdomep]

My first thought when reading this post was "are the going to fire heavy people too?" My husband has a few beers when he comes home from work - Guess that will be on the list soon

: My dad died of a heart attack and I had a hard time finding life insurance - guess they will check heredity too to save on health ins. when I need to find a job.

I hate that I am an awesome worker and I will be judged for having kids

 

[Frankie]

All that you guys have listed is my point. We let them control ANY part of our personal life, then the list becomes endless.

I don't think anyone is perfect. Think of your one bad habit, or your thing as unrealistic as it may sound to you, that someday an employer could tell you NOT to do.

Smoking is just the theme with this case.

Children has already been listed. What about those who take care of aging parents? I know for sure they can be very time consuming, health problems for sure and that too time consuming.

If an image is set forth by a company, have to wear dresses, suits at work,,,,what if they then decide for the companies image you have to wear dresses and suits at all times.

With them now in our homes telling us what we can or can't do at home, the list will for sure be endless and will include things that we never in a million years would expect to be on that list.

The only thing that will stop it, will be when employers are out of people to hire, as none of us are perfect, all of us have a life with people in it, and they can find no one to fit into their perfect little world.

 

[Jenn]

re: the obesity argument - I'm obese AND pregnant and it does not interfere with my job in any way. I have no problems keeping up with the often 12 hour days and on-the-run nature of the job.

However, I would not hold it against an employer were they to not hire me based on weight. If the job were something physical, certainly, I would expect them to choose someone who is in better shape than I am - that's just part of choosing the best person for the job. Likewise, in a physically stressful job, a non-smoker would be a better choice than a smoker.

Also arguably, were I looking at hiring a person of a certain age (30+), I would wonder what was wrong with them if they didn't already have a spouse and/or children. My job, certainly, is not suited to someone with small children because of the variable hours and unpredictable nature of the position - so my replacement will be someone young and childless - meaning they are suited and a better candidate for the job than someone with kids.

It's all about finding the best person to do the job. If a fatty, smoker or parent doesn't fit the job description, then they shouldn't be hired for the position.

 

[alphahorses]

Many more have done this because of the rising cost of health insurance. Can you blame them?? No Way... It is there right to protect their interests productivity, and time lost by workers who smoke, It has been Proved that people who smoke get sick and take time off at a higher rate then a non smoker. So it is the companies rights to protect themselves from productivity lost and their interests, which in this case is there workers Health..

It has also been proven that women and people over 50 are more likely to take sick time.... (I'm a woman and getting to 50 fast, so don't flame me!) .... so do we start firing people when they hit 50 or not hire women?

I hate smoke as much as anyone - nothing sets my asthemas off faster then someone smoking - and they can be 100 feet away! But what someone does LEGALLY in their home is their own business. Someone pointed out that some people sleep around a lot. You really think these people don't have health problems as a result? Obesity (that's my weakness!) certainly comes with health problems.

Do we cut out people who are are genetically predisposed to diabetes? high blood pressure? Heart disease? These people are more likely to cost the company money in the future as well.

I'd like to see the same Congressmen and Senators who pass these laws - or at least who don't oppose them! - pass a law that does not allow anyone to be elected or re-elected to office if they smoke!

 

[Sandy S.]

The hospital my husband works for has kinda already started this almost 4 years ago. The round about way they do it is with insurance costs going up they all have to go in for a kinda physical every year. You get so much for:

Not smoking

Not being overweight

Not having high cholesterol

Not having high blood pressure.

Not having high glucose levels.

They also ask if you drink and wear seat belt, family history of cancer, heart attack, Diabetic, etc.

You get x amount of dollars added to your paycheck for each one to go towards your insurance premium. This year they just started a voluntary all of your dependents, so I can see it coming next that dependents will be required to meet being in perfect health or you will pay the higher insurance.

They also made it a rule and I don't know how they could do it, no smoking by employees within 3 miles of the hospital. They will pay of course for anything that will help you quit.

 

[susanne]

Remember the old expression, "Your rights end where my nose begins"?

Never was it more true than in this case. What makes smoking different is that it directly affects the health of everyone around, including co-workers. Obesity does not cause heart disease or other problems in others nearby. Second hand smoke is a proven killer.

To begin, I am not in favor of giving employers control over our personal lives other than what directly affects the workplace.

However, the employer has every right (and owes it to the other employees) to say no smoking in the workplace, and no smoke residue/odors brought to work on clothes or breath.

Imagine if someone came to work with extreme body odor...the kind of stench that lingers after the person leaves the room and makes others gag. Would you not want your employer to tell that employee that they need to bathe, change clothing and do whatever to eliminate that odor in order to keep working there?

Not that this person should be fired, so long as they can come to work without creating an unpleasant workplace. It may be that individual's personal problem, but it is unfair to force the majority of workers to put up with this -- it's not as if they can look away or "change channels."

HOWEVER...

...the employee should be free to smoke at home as long as they can rid themselves of any odor before they come to work.

In other words:

Feel free to contaminate your own home, but don't impose it on me or others.

 

[Miniv]

I agree with Susanne.

MA

 

[journey]

I am going to add my 2 cents worth here.

I have been a 911 dispatcher for 5 years, I have 3 children under the age of 5. With the exception of maturnity leave in 2005, I missed 4 days when my Grandmother passed away and 1 day when my 4 year old was attacked by an animal in our backyard. That is all I missed in 2005.

I am a smoker and it does not affect my job performance, and my whole family is covered under my health insurance at work, which is at no cost to me. If they were to ask me to quit smoking on their property, I would. At home or on my own private time, that is my decision. I do not smoke around non smokers, and I respect their wishes when I am at their house.

As a former manager at a county market, I had more problems getting the single childless employees to work rather than the ones that had children. It didn't matter if they smoked or not. I never had an employee that put their smoking ahead of their job.

 

[Ashley]

I dont see people with children less likely to work. Most of them have to work to raise there kids. Now a days very few people can get by on one parent working house holds and have kids.

Imagine if someone came to work with extreme body odor...the kind of stench that lingers after the person leaves the room and makes others gag. Would you not want your employer to tell that employee that they need to bathe, change clothing and do whatever to eliminate that odor in order to keep working there?

This DOES happen at my work all the time. They dont do anything about it, its against some cultures to ware deoderant so to be fair to them, they dont have to. I would much rather smell smoke on somebody then body stench. Smoke smell goes away pretty fast, bo does not.

 

[Roxane Martin]

I, who don't smoke, had this discussion with my pipe-smoking husband at dinner last night. Although I wished he didn't smoke, he does, and in our own home we should have the right to set the rules for our household. I have no problem for the employer setting rules for while you are doing work for them, especially in their facility.

My husband had this thought--if they want to control what behaviors can be done at home then this implies that you are still "working" for this company, so he wanted to know if you'd be paid his wages while at home too. Think that will fly??

:

He also agreed that this is the start of the "foot in the door" for other legal behaviors to be controlled (we aren't talking about illegal ones). Last I heard, it was still legal to eat, or to have children.

There is always the balancing act between individual (states) rights and community(federal) rights. It goes back and forth throughout history, and will continue.

 

[MBennettp]

I agree with the ones that said what I do on my own time is my business.

I smoke and I work in a retail store. I haven't missed a single day since I have worked for them except for when we had a mare that was very sick. I didn't get fired for having animals, and no my smoking didn't make the mare sick.

I owned 2 businesses for several years and had a lot of employees. I had more trouble with people not coming to work because their child or spouse was sick than I did from the employee themselves being sick. I also had more problems with the employees that did not smoke taking extra breaks or longer breaks than I did the smokers. The smokers waited until break time and went to the designated area to smoke. I never had an employee light up a cigarette in the building or take a smoke break that wasn't scheduled.

I think that if the smokers would just boycott the companies that are doing this and not buy any of their products, it would let them see that all of the consumers out there are not their idea of perfect.

I personally would never want a job with a company that tries to control what I do on my time. I follow the company rules and do my job while I am on the clock but what I do when I am not at work is nobody's business.

There will never be a time when all businesses do this because there is a large percentage of companies owned by smokers or at least by people that understand that once the employee clocks out, they are free, they are no longer under company rules.

The last I knew, this was a free country. I think the companies that are doing this ARE infringing on their employees rights to an extent but also, the employee has the option of choosing not to work for them.

Something else that bothers me is that non smoking politicians don't seem to realize that smokers vote also.

Mary

 

[runamuk]

Do not know where the post is, this is a test before I write it again.

It was on the National News that Scotts (Miracle Grow) will fire any employee who smokes.

Not at work, but who smokes period. They will have to submit to nicotine tests and if they fail, they are fired. If they refuse the test, they are fired. :new_shocked: :new_shocked:

I agree that non smokers have rights, but what right does any company, or the government have to tell me I can not smoke out on my own 5 acres???? Or in my own house????????

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.

Some of these people have worked for Scotts for years. Scotts will provide them with any tool, or aid free of charge to help them quit. Other companies are already doing the same. Ok, can not smoke in THEIR building, that is their right. Where are ours???????

Their reasoning, smokers use more health care dollars. I will agree with that as well. But, I PAY more for my health care. So, who is next? Over weight people? They too use more health care dollars. Drinkers, they as well use more health care dollars and the list could go on and on.

One company as well does not allow workers in who SMELL like smoke. So, if your spouse smokes, or the person you car pool with smokes, tell them they have to quite!!!!!!!!!!! Good luck with that.

Where does it end? Do you drink on Saturdays? Be careful, you may be next!

This from a company that produces chemical fertilizers that are polluting our groundwater

:

: kinda like the pot calling the kettle black if you ask me. They ought to re-read the MSDS on most of their own products first.................

 

[Triggy&Blue&Daisy Too]

...

This from a company that produces chemical fertilizers that are polluting our groundwater

:

: kinda like the pot calling the kettle black if you ask me. They ought to re-read the MSDS on most of their own products first.................

Well Rori I have to disagree as the only ones contaminating the ground water are the users who use the products improperly. Fertilizers applied judiciously and according to the manufacturer's instructions do not. I wont' even go into the ground water contamination done by organics like the nitrates in manure from cattle-related industries.

And for the record I don't hate smokers but I do hate the habit. Try to keep that distinction in mind for the rest of what I'm about to say. People are more than just their habits but what astounds me most is that from those who are saying they don't want some outside influence to tell them what to do sounds more like the addiction talking than anything else.

I was a hard core smoker, one of the absolute worst, so yes I CAN talk and to me there is a whole lot wrong with a cigarette being the poster child for any rights issue.

: Perhaps only those who have kicked it and can look at it from a perspective of how the addiction used to affect every aspect of their lives will be able to understand that statement.

I can't believe what one cowardly person PM'd me about this thread the other day all I can say is that you are truly a pathetic piece of work. This board is about opinions and if you don't like it then leave. If you EVER send me another PM, other than to apologize, I'll be sure to report you to the moderators.

 

[susanne]

I've often thought that when one receives a nasty, cowardly PM they should post the entire message, including the name of the sender, on the forum. Out 'em. Bet that would make them think twice.

I can't believe some people are so afraid to stand behind what they have to say.