Interesting thing with Scotts going to fire people if they do not quit smoking.

www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-smoke1226,1,7065088.story?coll=bal-business-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true

How far should employers be allowed to intrude into your personal life and fire you for doing things they do not deem appropriate?   Should drug/alcohol, obesity, nicotine, and other tests be used to fire people?

Obesity: not conforming to BMI standards should allow firing?  Health risks are easily seen with anyone overweight, so it's the same concept.

Drinking alcohol: any consumption of alcohol should allow firing?  Health risks can be seen with the consumption of alcohol, so it's the same concept.

Firearms: owning and shooting guns should allow firing?  Health risks from owning firearms (lead poisoning, accidental discharges or shooting someone, the fake statistics of getting your gun taken from you and killed in your own home) can be seen, so its the same concept.

Tag for the supporters of the nanny state...

Assholes. Every-fucking-one of them.


ETA: You employer has a contract with you. You provide a service, they provide a paycheck. That is the end of the fucking story. You don't get to dictate to them, they don't get to dictate to you. Every fucking do-gooder health nazi is a commie shitheel at heart, and longs to exert their own ideals over someone else. Get fucked. I don't give a shit if you don't like my smoke. I don't like your whiny commie voice, but do you hear me whine about it? Nope.

We're all gonna die. But I'm gonna sure as fuck enjoy myself on the way to the grave. If you want to live to 100 and die in a hospital drooling on yourself, fine by me, but don't you fucking DARE impose that on me.

You can take your sin taxes, wad them up and fucking pound them up your ass.

Screw a nanny state.

But I think employers should be able to hire and fire whoever the hell they want.

Quoted: Interesting thing with Scotts going to fire people if they do not quit smoking. www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-smoke1226,1,7065088.story?coll=bal-business-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true

Could you post the article? I really dont want to register for the Baltimore Sun.

Shit....

I thought being in the military was bad enough... Yes, they can piss test you for nicotine and fire your ass.

Quoted: Tag for the supporters of the nanny state... Assholes. Every-fucking-one of them.

There are more of them then you think, even on this and other supposed sites that deal with freedom.

Quoted: Quoted: Tag for the supporters of the nanny state... Assholes. Every-fucking-one of them. There are more of them then you think, even on this and other supposed sites that deal with freedom.

Trust me, there are fucking tons of the shitsuckers. They breed like cockroaches.

Quoted: Quoted: Interesting thing with Scotts going to fire people if they do not quit smoking. www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-smoke1226,1,7065088.story?coll=bal-business-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true Could you post the article? I really dont want to register for the Baltimore Sun.

You don't have to register, but here it is anyway.

Company aims to put out smoking
Scotts threatens to fire employees who smoke cigarettes in effort to cut health-care costs
By Ilan Brat
The Wall Street Journal
Originally published December 26, 2005
Scotts Miracle-Gro Co. is taking its campaign to stamp out smoking among its workers to an unusual length: It's threatening to fire smokers beginning next fall.

The threat represents the latest attempt by an employer to try to reduce health-care costs by targeting smokers. In January, four employees at Weyco Inc., a small medical-benefits administrator in Okemos, Mich., lost their jobs after they refused to be tested for tobacco use. Scotts, which has 5,300 U.S. workers, is one of the largest companies to have put an outright ban on smoking even off the job.

With medical expenses rising, corporations are increasingly focusing on the employees who they believe account for the majority of health-care costs. Some companies have tried to lower the number of smokers in their work force by offering employees money and counseling help to quit smoking. In April, Humana Inc., a Louisville, Ky., health insurer, asked its employees if they had used tobacco in the previous 12 months. Those who said they hadn't got a $5 bonus in their paychecks each pay period. General Mills Inc. imposes a $20 a month surcharge on the health benefits of smokers.

Weyco, the medical-benefits administrator, announced a tobacco-free policy in Sept. 2003. It used a device similar to a breathalyzer to test for tobacco use. In January 2005, four of its 190 employees chose not to take the test and were forced to leave.

Scotts offers to pay for smoking-cessation programs and products. But the October ultimatum "is way over the top by today's standards," said Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health, a coalition of major corporations. "Most employers are still in the mode of 'You've got to have positive incentives.' "

Firing workers who won't stop smoking is illegal in the 30 states that have laws protecting smokers, according to the National Workrights Institute, a not-for-profit organization that focuses on human rights in the workplace. But elsewhere, unless workers fall in one of a few protected classifications defined by state and federal laws, employers have more leeway.

Some lawyers said Scotts could be vulnerable to disability challenges if it fires people who smoke. "Once you start regulating outside conduct, the question is where do you stop?" says Marvin Gittler, an employment-law specialist and managing partner with Asher, Gittler, Greenfield & D'Alba Ltd. in Chicago.

Smokers who are "really trying" to quit, even after the deadline, won't have to worry, allows Jim Hagedorn, Scotts' chief executive. "If you work with us, and we know you're working with us, I don't think you're going to end up getting fired."

Still, Scotts stresses that it expects employees to make a good-faith effort to improve their health. Scotts estimates that about 30 percent of its workers smoke.

Next October, the Marysville, Ohio, company said it will begin randomly testing about 20 percent of its work force nationwide where it is legal to do so. (Ohio is among the states that don't have specific smoker-protection laws.) The company says it hasn't worked out the details of how to test employees. Workers found to be still smoking or using other tobacco products habitually could be fired, Scotts says, as long as they work in states where such termination is legal. In states that do have smoker-protection laws, employees who are on the company's medical plan could see their health-care premiums become "substantially higher," though details aren't final yet, the company adds.

The tobacco initiative is part of a broad wellness program that includes a $5 million fitness gym and health clinic opened last month near the company's headquarters. Employees on the company's medical plan will have free access in the clinic to a physician, nurse practitioners, diet and fitness experts and a pharmacy with generic drugs.

In return, every year employees will face a strict requirement: Take a health assessment through a program affiliated with medical-information Web site WebMD Health Corp. -- or pay $40 extra a month in health-care costs. The health assessment starts with a form to be filled out online. Then, a "health coach" contacts the employee and arranges a treatment regimen for any health issues. The employee must follow through with the recommendations or pay higher premiums, though the exact amount hasn't been worked out yet.

The wellness program is administered by Whole Health Management Inc., a Cleveland company. Whole Health Management also works with Continental Airlines, Sprint Nextel and Nissan, among others.

Scotts' Hagedorn said he has "gotten pretty religious" about his employees' health recently. Last year, the company abolished smoking from its corporate campus, and the company cafeteria has cut down on fried food, instead offering up baked salmon and other fish. Vending machines dispense more "granola stuff," he said. By company mandate, employees who leave work during the work day for the gym won't be penalized.

Hagedorn, 50, once smoked two packs of cigarettes a day but quit 20 years ago after his mother died of lung cancer. He said he understands how difficult it is to quit smoking but also how important it is. "Are we going to stand by and watch our people get sick? The answer is no," he said. "Success here is not firing anybody."

Linda Sutkin, a 31-year employee of the lawn and gardening-products company who works in customer service, won't have that worry. After a company-sponsored smoking-cessation program and Zyban, a medication to help her quit, the 50-year-old smoked her last cigarette in January 2004. She misses the camaraderie of smoking with friends on breaks but is glad she quit.

Other smokers at headquarters are concerned about the company's October deadline, she says. "The consensus is like, is this the end or is it going to lead to something else?" she says. "Are they going to watch what we eat?"

My employer seems to think they own us.  Rule number one in the rules and regs manual. "The employee with conduct himself both on and off duty in a manner that will not discredit himself or the department."

Complete bullshit.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Interesting thing with Scotts going to fire people if they do not quit smoking. www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-smoke1226,1,7065088.story?coll=bal-business-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true Could you post the article? I really dont want to register for the Baltimore Sun. You don't have to register, but here it is anyway. Company aims to put out smoking Scotts threatens to fire employees who smoke cigarettes in effort to cut health-care costs -----------------snip commie do gooder bullshit--------------------------------------------- "The consensus is like, is this the end or is it going to lead to something else?" she says. "Are they going to watch what we eat?"

Guess what? You let the fuckers get their grubby little mitts in the door with drug testing. It's just a natural progression. More and more control will be exerted (for the benefit of the whole and for your own good, of course) until you can't take a shit without wiping your ass with .gov approved toilet paper.

I wholeheartedly agree that a company should hire and fire who they want. And my company has just gone to the same commie bullshit. And you know what? I'm giving my notice tomorrow. Fuck corporate America, fuck the commie assholes who applaud this shit, and fuck each and every do-gooder waiting in the wings to gloatingly take every bit of fun out of life.

I would institute a plan of my own: Before I get fired, I would set up the largest form of corporate sabotage ever seen by the likes of mankind.

And I don't smoke but a couple cigars a year, so I don't even know that I would be affected.  But It would certainly affect me mentally.  Perhaps I could sue for undue stress & pain and suffering.

The problem is that in order to stop companies from doing this you would have to change at-will employment.  In other words, you'd have to write laws saying "an employer cannot fire an employee for X . . . ." because the current rule in most states is you can fire someone for any reason or no reason whatsoever, except for a few limited exceptions like age, gender, race, retaliation, etc.

Real solution is to quit working for companies that try to dictate your personal life.

Quoted: I would institute a plan of my own: Before I get fired, I would set up the largest form of corporate sabotage ever seen by the likes of mankind. And I don't smoke but a couple cigars a year, so I don't even know that I would be affected.  But It would certainly affect me mentally.  Perhaps I could sue for undue stress & pain and suffering.

Guess what? They just switch to hair testing (in the interest of safety of course) and then add nicotine to the spectrum of shit they're already testing for. Had a smoke on the sneak and get popped? Ooooohh, so sorry, you violated company policy. You're fired.

Any control your employer may have over you ends at the timeclock on the way out.

I did not know that 30 states had smoker discrimination laws. Interesting.

I think this is complete bullshit.

Does anyone think this whole grain granola goodness crap has gone too far and is driving people fucking nuts?

Can't drink, can't smoke, can't tell even slightly offensive jokes...

Soon you wont even be able to eat a hamburger, much less a fat juicy steak in peace...

This country is going to hell...

Quoted: Screw a nanny state. But I think employers should be able to hire and fire whoever the hell they want.

+1

I would quit immediately. They have a right to be complete idiots (although this is pushing it to an extreme), and I have a right to work elsewhere.

"I was looking for a job when I found this one". I will not work for a company that attempts to control my activities outside of work. Period.

Quoted: Any control your employer may have over you ends at the timeclock on the way out.

Obviously, this is not true anymore.

BTW: when I first heard about this on the Columbus, OH radio station, I cancelled my Scott's lawnservice. The cool thing about it is that the DJ (John Corby, for any of you Ohioans) was telling people that's what he would do if he used them.  People were really fired up about it.

My former company did drug tests.  I asked them the following question:

If I went on a trip to Amsterdam, and went into one of their bars and smoked some marijuana (where it is PERFECTLY legal), then came back and they tested me, would I be in violation?

Yep.

Also, medical marijuana use, where it is permitted legally, would also put you in violation.

fuck those faggots

Quoted: My employer seems to think they own us.  Rule number one in the rules and regs manual. "The employee with conduct himself both on and off duty in a manner that will not discredit himself or the department."

Sorry, but you are held to a higher standard. You are a society role model. What you do off duty affects your departments image. With great priviledge comes great responsibility. A scotts employee on the other hand....

Terminating employees that smoke is going WAY overboard.......but I do realize that employers pay an enormous amount of their insurance cost to the care of smokers ailments........I just don't agree that this is the best way for them to reduce their costs.....

sue the piss out of them for wrongful termination.

This is the danger with banning smoking in bars and resturants --legislating LEGAL (maybe unhealthy--but legal) behavior on PRIVATE property.  Now the precedent has been set. I can see the employer stating that smokers have a higher incidence of X or Y disease and therefore higher health care costs and as such they either pass on a surcharge or give and incentive to quit smoking.  However that in turn opens the door to all kinds of other "risky" behavior being identified, quantified and charged for, or the subject being excluded from company health plans etc.  --lets see, chronic speeders (more than say 3 tickets a year), alcoholics, homosexuals , unmarried heterosexuals, married heterosexuals with a history of infidelity, GUN OWNERS, people with "high perfomance" cars, motorcycle riders, joggers (I know quite a few fitness freaks that are ALWAYS injured and getting medical help) and folks who reside in EPA identified "smog zones".
How about we go back to the old way. Ill go see the Dr. when I need to and pay him when I'm done and If  I can afford private health insurance I'll get it.  For some reason people THINK health insurance is free --its not, you pay for it in one way shape or form wether you see it or not directly in your paycheck is the only diffrence.
That being said these employers can GTH outside the office. The time you pay me for --you can tell me what to do,  outside of that ... get fu---d ! But dont be surprised if Scott's gets away with it.

And as much as some of you abhor unions, garbage like this was why they were created in the first place. Don't believe me? Then look at what Ford [the man] thought about his workers while they were on their own time. Not surprised that he had nazi leanings. And it will go far past smoking if we allow it to. If cost can be increased because of smoking then any bad behavior to include homosexuality, loose morals, dangerous activities, [who judges that?] alcohol, going off meds, ...........where does it stop?

Should they be able to terminate you for smoking?  No, not unless smoking in some way intereferes with the proper performance of the job.

Should they be able to terminate you for illegal drug use or prescription drug abuse?  Yes, you are a hazard to yourself and those around you.  BTW, you are also egaged in a criminal activity.

If your job involves serious safety issues and things you do in the off hours could hold over to your work hours (drugs & alcohol), then yes, they should be able to terminate you.  This should be made part of the employment "contract" - you need to know the conditions of employment before you start.

Here's the CLINKER - if you are on an insurance-paid or government-paid health care plan, you have surrendered some of your rights.  This is how they got their hooks into you, despite all your cursing and swearing, Gravity Tester.  

BTW, I DO NOT want to pay to treat your smoking-induced lung cancer treatment.

What about second hand smoke?

I can smell the clothes I wore to the bar last nite, right now.


How would they test this and be accurate?

No one is entitled to any particular job.  Likewise, no one is forced to take any particular job.  I wouldn't want to work there because I value freedom of association.  While I have a very strong dislike of smoking, some of my best friends are smokers.  And sometimes, I like to have a cigar.  I will not be punished for hanging out with smokers.  Therefore, I would either quit or go quietly when fired.  

The owner of the business needs to be free to run it as he so pleases.  It is his property.  However, the employees are not.  They are all volunteers.  Whenever the employer/employee relationship sours, both side have equal power when it comes to ending it.

I can understand where this guy is coming from.  Smoking causes lost productivity and increased health care costs.  Maybe he just got fed up with it.  Or maybe he is some sort of control freak.

Of course you could join a union.  Then you would have to answer to those people.  If you go against the union, you won't get fired.  Maybe your car will be torched, your home vandalized, your children threatened and your person injured.  But heck, the union won't fire you because they want the money.

The purpose of a union is to get money from the employer and from the members and use it any way they please.  Unions have always been about power for the union bosses.  It has never been about worker well-being.  

If we truely had "at will" employment, I could hire/fire ppl based on conditions that I feel are a bonus/detriment to my operation without the threat of being sued.

I don't want people working for me who have a family and/or a spouse that works.  Too much time spent out of the office to attend to "family issues."

Any chemical or alcohol dependancy.  Do rehab on your own time, not mine.  You created your problem, it isn't my responsibility to fix it.

Participating in hobbies or activities I don't agree with.  Try to form a union - fired.  Participate in the local communist org - fired.  Drive onto company property with a "Free Mumia" bumper sticker - fired.  Same goes for a Kerry/Edwards sticker.

Any religious, ethnic, racial or gender affiliation that I determine may cause a disruptive influence in the work atmosphere.

The point that has not been pointed out is that they company pays for the healthcare.

You guys are protesting this but how many of you would money into a bad situation?

The option should be this.  You can have healthcare paid for if you want it.  If you want to keep it you cant smoke.  If you decline coverage then you can do whatever the fuck you want.  That seems fair to me.

Smoking costs BILLIONS of dollars of our healthcare dollars year.  How many of us on this board have had relatives die of lung cancer?  I think I can remember about 5 members since I have joined the have lost loved ones to lung cancer.  With me getting hit twice!  

What they should be able to do is not fire you for smoking but not provide you with healthcare insurance.  Simple as that.  Its your choice.

Quoted: Of course you could join a union.  Then you would have to answer to those people.  If you go against the union, you won't get fired.  Maybe your car will be torched, your home vandalized, your children threatened and your person injured.  But heck, the union won't fire you because they want the money. The purpose of a union is to get money from the employer and from the members and use it any way they please.  Unions have always been about power for the union bosses.  It has never been about worker well-being.

you should take another look at history.  look at coal mines and steel mill in particular. unions played an important roll in lowering death rates.
I'm as anti-union as just about anyone, based on what today's unions have done to manufacturing in America, but at least try to use reality as a basis for your arguments.

Quoted: The option should be this.  You can have healthcare paid for if you want it.  If you want to keep it you cant smoke.  If you decline coverage then you can do whatever the fuck you want.  That seems fair to me.

Agreed 100%

Smoking costs BILLIONS of dollars of our healthcare dollars year.  How many of us on this board have had relatives die of lung cancer?  I think I can remember about 5 members since I have joined the have lost loved ones to lung cancer.  With me getting hit twice!

Don't smokers tend to die off faster than non-smokers?  So, it conceivable they cost the healthcare industry less over the normal lifespan?  Isn't smoking-related deaths like lung cancer, throat cancer, etc... faster and cheaper than wasting away in a nursing home for 15 years at $20,000/month?

Or am I way off base?  I do understand that chemo is outrageously expensive.

They have a good idea there if you dont like it move on!!

Quoted: The point that has not been pointed out is that they company pays for the healthcare. You guys are protesting this but how many of you would money into a bad situation? The option should be this.  You can have healthcare paid for if you want it.  If you want to keep it you cant smoke.  If you decline coverage then you can do whatever the fuck you want.  That seems fair to me. Smoking costs BILLIONS of dollars of our healthcare dollars year.  How many of us on this board have had relatives die of lung cancer?  I think I can remember about 5 members since I have joined the have lost loved ones to lung cancer.  With me getting hit twice!

Both of my parents had cancer, they even had the same type of cancer, my mom died of complications relating to the original treatment and the spread of several other types. My dad is kicking just fine, Neither smoked not did their parents or family. Stuff happens, think about Radon, that is the second biggest reason for lung cancer, it's quite prevelent in Michigan also. Asbestosis is another, the risks go up if you smoke and the blame is placed on smoking, but the real fact is that many thing cause lung cancer, but the blame is very easy to place on smoking. I'd bet Scotts has more then a few suits against it by employees who blame lung injuries on the chemicals used and inhaled and their defense will be that smoking increased the risk. For many years their employees wore no protective wear whatsoever, not even a mask, and the chemicals were much more dangerous then now, tho to say it's safe is a joke. We are only seeing a small tip of the game here I'd bet.

Quoted: Don't smokers tend to die off faster than non-smokers?  So, it conceivable they cost the healthcare industry less over the normal lifespan?  Isn't smoking-related deaths like lung cancer, throat cancer, etc... faster and cheaper than wasting away in a nursing home for 15 years at $20,000/month? Or am I way off base?  I do understand that chemo is outrageously expensive.

You have some good points there but to clarify.  The last 6 months of a smokers life with lung cancer will cost several hundreds of thousands of dollars per case.   Most of the healtcare dollars for any case occurs with the very young and very old.  

So I agree lingering at $20000 a year is costly and its more like $40000.  But a cancer patient will go throught that in a days worth of treatment.  So most of them have tens of MRIs and CTs.  Several courses of chemo, radiation and surgery.

The part that needs to be pointed out is that smoking is a CHOICE so you should be responsible for the consequences.  But getting old is not debatable and not a choice.

One is completely avoidable and the other is not.

With this being said, people I have spoke to tell me that its harder to stop smoking then to stop certain drugs.  Thats neither here nor there but it tells you that Cigs are drugs and highly addictive.

Another point is that smokers have a much higher proprotion of depressed individuals.  Current thought is that smoking perks them up and makes them feel better.  So they smoke more to cope.  Also they may have more addictive personalities.

I have also noticed more young girls are starting to smoke then young boys. Used to be the other way around.  But men are starting to get outnumbered by women smokers.  This could also be due to the higher numbers of depressed females.

Regardless smoking is not an easy issue nor one that will go away easily.

Quoted: Both of my parents had cancer, they even had the same type of cancer, my mom died of complications relating to the original treatment and the spread of several other types. My dad is kicking just fine, Neither smoked not did their parents or family. Stuff happens, think about Radon, that is the second biggest reason for lung cancer, it's quite prevelent in Michigan also. Asbestosis is another, the risks go up if you smoke and the blame is placed on smoking, but the real fact is that many thing cause lung cancer, but the blame is very easy to place on smoking. I'd bet Scotts has more then a few suits against it by employees who blame lung injuries on the chemicals used and inhaled and their defense will be that smoking increased the risk. For many years their employees wore no protective wear whatsoever, not even a mask, and the chemicals were much more dangerous then now, tho to say it's safe is a joke. We are only seeing a small tip of the game here I'd bet.

That is sad to hear about your parents.  You make some good points that lung cancer can be caused by many things.  The point that you are missing is that smoking is a CHOICE and what your parents went through was not.

We can avoid things that we have a choice in.  Other things we cant.

Employment is "at-will" and drug testing is drug testing, methamphetamine, alcohol, heroin, nicotine, THC, caffeine, whatever...

Quoted: Quoted: The point that has not been pointed out is that they company pays for the healthcare. You guys are protesting this but how many of you would money into a bad situation? The option should be this.  You can have healthcare paid for if you want it.  If you want to keep it you cant smoke.  If you decline coverage then you can do whatever the fuck you want.  That seems fair to me. Smoking costs BILLIONS of dollars of our healthcare dollars year.  How many of us on this board have had relatives die of lung cancer?  I think I can remember about 5 members since I have joined the have lost loved ones to lung cancer.  With me getting hit twice!   Both of my parents had cancer, they even had the same type of cancer, my mom died of complications relating to the original treatment and the spread of several other types. My dad is kicking just fine, Neither smoked not did their parents or family. Stuff happens, think about Radon, that is the second biggest reason for lung cancer, it's quite prevelent in Michigan also. Asbestosis is another, the risks go up if you smoke and the blame is placed on smoking, but the real fact is that many thing cause lung cancer, but the blame is very easy to place on smoking. I'd bet Scotts has more then a few suits against it by employees who blame lung injuries on the chemicals used and inhaled and their defense will be that smoking increased the risk. For many years their employees wore no protective wear whatsoever, not even a mask, and the chemicals were much more dangerous then now, tho to say it's safe is a joke. We are only seeing a small tip of the game here I'd bet.

Doesn't matter.

Nothing guarantees them a job.  If they don't like the way they get treated, or disagree with the reasoning the emplyoer uses...

They have two choices.

1) Suck it up.

2) Go find employment elsewhere.

I really don't get people that think we have a right to work someplace and to control the workplace as employees. I started my own business so that I could run shit the way I wanted. Prior to starting this business, if an employer enacted policy I disliked, I hauled ass. Rather than bitching and moaning like they were infringing upon me, I packed up and got out, and always found better circumstances elsewhere.

eta:  Sorry about your parents.

Just don't smoke on their time.

One thing I hate is a bunch of smokers whinning about the lack of "smoke breaks"

I don't get one or need one, you are on the companies time.

Off the clock and off the property do what you want.

The other issue that people are not getting is that healthcare costs are stiffiling our industries and companies.  GM and FORD would be much healthier (pun intended) if they didnt have to pay so much in healthcare costs and legacy costs.   They have other problems but this is one of the large ones.

A small business can get killed by healthcare insurance.  $5-10k per person.  

I don't think they should be able to fire you but I do think they can make health plans equitable based on risk behavior.  The only way to do this without the ACLU getting involved is to let people purchase their own plans.  A smoker will get less for his money than a non-smoker.  It's still a benefit amount that's given equally to every employee but the market place decides the rest.

Quoted: The other issue that people are not getting is that healthcare costs are stiffiling our industries and companies.  GM and FORD would be much healthier (pun intended) if they didnt have to pay so much in healthcare costs and legacy costs.   They have other problems but this is one of the large ones. A small business can get killed by healthcare insurance.  $5-10k per person.

Tell me about it.  We can't currently afford healthcare for ourselves. We'll ge there, but it won;t be for a couple more years.

Quoted: I really don't get people that think we have a right to work someplace and to control the workplace as employees. I started my own business so that I could run shit the way I wanted. Prior to starting this business, if an employer enacted policy I disliked, I hauled ass. Rather than bitching and moaning like they were infringing upon me, I packed up and got out, and always found better circumstances elsewhere.

There probably aren't a lot here who would argue that point.
However, there is nothing wrong with taking a stand when you think something is wrong, before moving on.
The bottom line here is that this will start to become the norm at large companies, if there are no negative consequences for Scotts.

Quoted: ....Does anyone think this whole grain granola goodness crap has gone too far and is driving people fucking nuts?.....

-Well, it doesn't have to do with lifestyle choices, but health insurance costs.
I'd be surprised if it was allowed to stand in court however. They would have to show that it impacted your ability to do the job, and the company is not even claiming that.

I would expect that (if it were contested) the company would just have to charge smokers more for health care, proportionate to their higher average health-related costs.


....Also: the Boston -whatever newspaper told me I had to register to see the story at all, too. Is there some trick there I don't know?
~

Quoted: Should they be able to terminate you for illegal drug use or prescription drug abuse?  Yes, you are a hazard to yourself and those around you.  BTW, you are also egaged in a criminal activity.

What about those who have a few drinks then get in their car to drive home? Should employers have the right to fire you for any illegal activity after work hours? Where does one draw the line...once you allow an employer any contol over your personal life.

Fuck them, it is BS.

Quoted: The point that has not been pointed out is that they company pays for the healthcare. You guys are protesting this but how many of you would money into a bad situation? The option should be this.  You can have healthcare paid for if you want it.  If you want to keep it you cant smoke.  If you decline coverage then you can do whatever the fuck you want.  That seems fair to me. Smoking costs BILLIONS of dollars of our healthcare dollars year.  How many of us on this board have had relatives die of lung cancer?  I think I can remember about 5 members since I have joined the have lost loved ones to lung cancer.  With me getting hit twice!

They should also get a DNA sample and fire for Genetic defects that may cost them money in healthcare for you or any dependants that could be prone to medical treatment in the future. They should fire you because you drive a sports car or a motorcycle and you are at high risk. Actually, they should look into your "leisure" activities and perform a risk assessment. If you are single, you are more at risk to catching an STD's that could cost money. See where I am going? This has the potential for some serious problems and abuse.

Quoted: Should they be able to terminate you for smoking?  No, not unless smoking in some way intereferes with the proper performance of the job. Should they be able to terminate you for illegal drug use or prescription drug abuse?  Yes, you are a hazard to yourself and those around you.  BTW, you are also egaged in a criminal activity. If your job involves serious safety issues and things you do in the off hours could hold over to your work hours (drugs & alcohol), then yes, they should be able to terminate you.  This should be made part of the employment "contract" - you need to know the conditions of employment before you start. Here's the CLINKER - if you are on an insurance-paid or government-paid health care plan, you have surrendered some of your rights.  This is how they got their hooks into you, despite all your cursing and swearing, Gravity Tester.   BTW, I DO NOT want to pay to treat your smoking-induced lung cancer treatment.

Gee. And I thought that was what the 2 dollar a pack tax was supposed to be for. Oh, wait, I forgot. Not only do you get to tax the tobacco (and hey, I know, I could quit--but I LIKE to smoke) but you get to get haughty towards the smokers.

And I don't particularly want to finance your kid's education, nor do I want to finance Manuel Labor's anchor babie's education either, but hey, taxes is taxes.

And as to my cursing and swearing, well, lah-ti-fucking-dah! I apologize if I bruised your sensitive sensibilities, but I get a bit fucking hopping mad when someone else tells me what's good for me. Maybe the ever encroaching fist of eventual do-gooder ruled existence trips your fucking trigger, but it makes me shudder with revulsion.

And it's CLINCHER not CLINKER. A clinker is the remnants of a burn.

Quoted: What about second hand smoke? I can smell the clothes I wore to the bar last nite, right now. How would they test this and be accurate?

Heheh--you better stop hanging out where those evil smokers are. Your willing inhalation of secondhand smoke makes you little better than a smoker yourself.