Posted on 11/29/2006 3:01:47 PM PST by GQuagmire
A Buzzards Bay man has filed a civil rights lawsuit against The Scotts Company, the lawn care giant, which fired him after a drug test showed nicotine in his urine, putting him in violation of a company policy forbidding employees to smoke on or off the job
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Dumb lawsuit. There is no such thing as a right to smoke.
The best he can hope for is to catch that SOB metrosexual owner of Scotts in Michigan where dueling is now legal.
Bingo. I love smokers. For every pack of cigarettes they buy, they pay $2-$4 of taxes that I don't have to pay.
Smoke 'em if you got 'em! Need a light?
Does Scotts make the fertilizer that tobacco farmers use on their tobacco? Maybe they know something that the general public does not know. Maybe they don't want to be sued for making fertilizer loaded with toxins that are soaked up by tobacco and then inhaled/ingested into the systems of tobacco smokers/users.
Plus they die some 5-7 years sooner saving SSN benefits for me!
Assuming there will be Social Security in 18 years when I retire......
Interrogative?
What about if you drink? Waht about if you get a speeding ticket? What about if you have guns in your house? What about if you're 150 lbs overweight? What if you're only 50 lbs overweight?
All those could be deemed within the right of a company to regulate since all those things according to current PC thought could make you a high risk employee. Would you agree to firing on any of those grounds?
He could argue that it was there from nicotine gum, couldn't he? What if he were using it to quit?
I know that contracts are there for this reason, but it does bother me a bit. And I don't smoke.
im not so sure about that
>>Poor company policy >>>----> Law suit >>>----> Press coverage >>>----> Lost sales among smokers<<
Count me in. I have roughly one cigar every two months. Would I have failed this test?
Here is an example of one of the more extreme policies I've seen. Great company and products, just a bit over the top on tobacco. They're in a rural setting in So. NH.
http://www.kimballphysics.com/about_KPI/visits.htm#Tobacco%20Policies
Only to the degree that their behavior directly affects their job. Otherwise your employer becomes your owner.
I will not buy another Scott's product.
>>I suppose some accounted figured that health insurance for non-smokers is cheaper, or some such thing. <<
That excuse gives me the chills. It is the thinking behind helmet laws and ANY other nanny state (and company) rubber padding of my world and limits to my freedom on my own time. What about mountain biking, skydiving and Big Macs?
Maybe they want tobacco companies to use their fertilizer instead.
I hope their ass is grass.
Leni
Why do I get the impression that this is probably tied to a health care plan that the company pays for. The employee has agreed not to smoke for some reason.
Homosexuality has been already been suggested.
A vegan diet is unnatural and unhealthy.
Neither eating nor drinking during daylight hours for a month poses health and safety risks.
But maybe you 'second hand smoke'. YOU'RE FIRED!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.