This Story is Archived
Man sues employer over smoking policy »
Posted by: TomBiro 1 year, 9 months agoA man fired by The Scotts Co. because a drug test pulled up nicotine in his urine is suing the company for his firing.
Read Full Story at boston.com »
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 227
-
RivrWlker
Nov. 30, 2006, 11:39 a.m.All I can say about this is it's yet another instance of a country that is becoming less free all the time for one reason or another. We attack each other from the left and the right, each side with their special interest desires to end whatever "sin" they see in the world. The corporate world attacks us because they want us to "conform" to their image. They don't want us to be fat, they don't want us to smoke, they want us to be physically fit...they want us to be their soldiers and do what we're told...obey orders, even in our private lives because our behavior costs them money. The insurance world dictates to the medical world and the corporate world, exactly what they have to conform to in order to obtain insurance. It goes on and on, example after example, each individual situation blind to the total accumulated affect it has on our lives and our freedom.
-
lfergie812
Nov. 30, 2006, 2:59 p.m.Group insurance is getting personal when they can dictate how you live your life. What's next, you can't have any kids because that would raise the rates or you can't go hunting because you might get injured? Where will it stop?
-
elzorro2162
Nov. 30, 2006, 5:03 p.m.Remember: OUR FREEDOMS END WHERE MY NEIGHBORS BEGIN. It is not a freedom issue but a rights issue. People should have the right to breathe clean air. I you wanna smoke and ruin your life, fine. It is your prerrogative. But neither me or my children need to put up with the stinkin' smell around and sticking in my clothes.
Besides, about body weight, health insurance etc. are all just pressures that you don't have to succumb to. You don't have to follow them. There are consequences, of course like threats to not cover these conditions and it is understandibly so. If one decides to ruin their health, it was a mature concientious decision...period.
-
Littledgrl
Nov. 30, 2006, 10:42 p.m.You are right on the mark, Rivr. I'm so sick and tired of hearing about the woes of the insurance and medical industry. Just the other day I went to the lab at a local hospital to have an ultrasound done. The lobby was decorated in floor to ceiling marble and the lab interior had 12" crown molding throughout. On my way out, I noticed a drug rep climbing out of her BMW. How do the people in these industries sleep at night? They must be blind to the downsteam effects of their selfishness - a man losing his job because of a smoking policy based on the high cost of health care...
-
lvl99miner
Dec. 1, 2006, 8:59 a.m.I hope they throw the guy out of the court room!! "You're FIRED"!!!
-
-
Gransater
Nov. 30, 2006, 11:53 a.m.At what point in time will the masses react? When is enough enough? What freedom will have to be circumvented before realisation sets in that freedom has been downgraded to just a word, and is no longer a concept?
When will the restrictions of "legal" activity finally brake down the acceptance of "Big Brother" intervention in the name of good, and make us realise we have descended into servitude, under the whim of our masters? When we can no longer drink alcohol, drink sodas, attend the wrong church, drive the wrong car, eat hamburgers, belong to the wrong clubs .............
A case can be made against almost anything, that it could increase "COSTS" of this or that for a prospective employer, or even for society as a whole.
Our differences such as, likes and dislikes, habits, custumes, abilities, preferences, fears, diversities etc, etc, etc is what created and maintained our vibrant society, and made us the leader of the world.
-
Gransater
Nov. 30, 2006, 12:01 p.m.Cont
Our fredom is being chipped away at, little by little, always in the name of a perceived good. Allowing this to go on will at some point in time transform us to semi zombies at the beck and call of the righteous ones. Everything we do will become sanctioned for the "good of all". Free will, free expression, free movement, free thought will cease to exist as we know it today. Is this really the road we wish to travel on ???
-
RivrWlker
Nov. 30, 2006, 12:09 p.m.Thank you, Gransater! I'm so glad someone else understands what this is about.
-
-
RivrWlker
Nov. 30, 2006, 12:06 p.m.These kinds of thngs are slowly destroying us. The "drug war" costs us a fortune, imprisons thousands upon thousands of people and creates crime and immoral behavior on a scale far more vast than if we just left people alone. The hypocracy of it is unbelievable. The man who created Scott's policy was a 2-pack a day smoker. Because he overcame his addiction and now sees the error of his ways, he is going to dictate to all those under his control that they cannot make their own "mistakes." There is absolutely no difference between that and a "recovering" alcoholic commanding his employees not to drink. They will both come up with every excuse in the world to make it "righteous" to obey them, including how much money it costs them, as if that is more important than our freedom to be imperfect.
-
blksentra2
Nov. 30, 2006, 12:08 p.m.I hope that guy sues the crap out of that company and wins. I could've have sworn that smoking cigarettes on your own personal time was legal the other day. What happened!!??
This example almost makes me want to take up smoking.
-
BuffaloJ
Nov. 30, 2006, 12:24 p.m.At my first professional job out of college my boss told me(6 months after I had been hired) that they don't allow smoking. They didn't mind if I smoked at home or anything, but I wasn't to have ANY smell of smoke on me at work. The boss actually believed that if customers smelled smoke on an engineer then they would not want to do business with the company. I decided at that very moment that I would find a new job. That boss was a very strange guy.
Soon I did have a new job and one of the guys asked me what it would take to keep me and I responded "Let me smoke a cigarette."
-
RivrWlker
Nov. 30, 2006, 12:35 p.m.Buffalo...that is such a beautifully pittiful little cry for freedom.
-
-
-
BUSHFANII
Nov. 30, 2006, 1:01 p.m.What is everyone so upset about the guy knew the rules and he broke them? If you want to smoke don't work at a place that doesn't allow smoking. How hard is that to understand. People need to understand that they are responsible for their own actions.
-
Taganan
Nov. 30, 2006, 1:10 p.m.The Nanny-state is creeping in. First the anti-smoking Nazis can prevent you from smoking in your own home, on your own time. Then they will try to prevent drinking alcohol, regulate what you can eat, dictate whether you own a car, and it will go on until the Nannies have total legal control. Except they won't be regulated themselves, because they are the self-righteous elite. Idiot judges on the Left will go along with this. Now is the time to stop it, not when you are evicted from a house you bought or apartment you rent, or lose your job for having a beer or wine. Now is the time to stand up and say "No!! This is my time, my home and what I do is not illegal, therefore you cannot fire me for doing it."
-
RivrWlker
Nov. 30, 2006, 1:34 p.m.Taganan...I don't think you understand the full impact of this. This isn't a problem of the left. The chipping away of individual rights is as much a problem of the right as it is the left. The right wants my children to pray to their God. They want their judges to make it illegal for my daughters to treat their bodies as they wish. The right has its own set of "moral" standards it wants me to conform to. The list of them is long and invades my life every bit as much as the "morality" of the left. They won't leave me alone to live as I wish either.
-
ibstilyn
Nov. 30, 2006, 11:09 p.m....Idiot judges on the Left will go along with this....
Ummm.. it was the right wing president Ronald Reagan that championed the pre-employment drug screen in the first place.
If anything those on the left will be fighting this. It's when the republicans get into power that we lose personal freedoms and pass "law & order" police state legislation.
-
-
LiberalsSmell
Nov. 30, 2006, 1:45 p.m."Next they're going to say, 'You don't get enough exercise' or 'Both your parents died of a heart attack at age 45 so we don't want to hire you because you're more likely to need medical care,' " Schwartz said.
-100% right. The trans fat ban in NY follows the same line of thinking. The pussification of American culture continues...
-
samsara15
Nov. 30, 2006, 1:46 p.m.This isn't a left or right issue, but it is the nanny-state gone out of control. The insurance companies are taking control of people's lives. At least the company should offer the option of not carrying insurance, and therby not being subject to Big Brother.
-
-
WoeIsMe
Dec. 1, 2006, 12:25 a.m.I think you missed the point that they were "self-insured," which means that they don't carry insurance. The Scott company pays the medical expenses of their employees. They are the employer and the insurer.
This wouldn't be a problem if Americans didn't believe that insurance is an obligation of the employer and took responsibility of their own healthcare. The more you allow outside forces (employers, gov't, etc) into your life, via insurance, housing, or anything provided to you, the more individual rights you give up, the more the "providers" can dictate your lifestyle.
-
-
Russencrantz
Nov. 30, 2006, 2:10 p.m.I'm a smoker (well... I just quit, so we'll see how it goes), and while I think policies like this suck, I have to play devil's advocate here...
I can see how there would be some legality in their policy, althogh not necessarily for the purpose of denying insurance. Drinking is legal, but it is commonly accepted that you cannot drink while at work, or come to work drunk. People still drink, you just can't come to work with alcohol in your system. I could easily see how emplyers could enforce a similar policy for cigarettes, without infinging on any of the employees rights.
In all fairness, nicotine is a substance to which many people are addicted. It may or may not be in the best interest of the company to deny addicts their drug, but it is a drug, and a company has every right to require that employees come to work substance free -- be the drug legal or illegal.
If you want to smoke, that's fine, but you better do it a couple of hours before you come to work.
-
endofdays
Nov. 30, 2006, 2:21 p.m.I don't think "a couple hours before you come to work" would be enough time for the nicotine to metabolize... but I could be wrong.
And nicotine may be a drug, but it's a legal, highly regulated drug. Lots of people are also very addicted to caffeine, but God help any company that tries to ban the consumption of coffee, in or out of work.
The real issue here is the exorbitant health care costs that force a company to make this kind of decision in the first place.
-
RivrWlker
Nov. 30, 2006, 3:45 p.m.Okay, Russ...so if you succeed in quitting you'll side with the nicotine natzi's and say don't smoke between 6AM and 5PM, but if you don't succeed in quitting you'll side with the smokers? Somehow this seems like the extreme example of the extreme hypocrisy of the nicotine natzi's. The least you could do is pick a side. Whether their policy is legal or not isn't the sole issue. Prohibition made liquor illegal and now we laugh at that and realize what havoc it created. It was reasonable to prohibit smoking in the office. It would not be reasonable to outlaw it, which is in effect what this company is doing in their own "self-righteous elite" little world.
-
elzorro2162
Nov. 30, 2006, 5:09 p.m.Good point Russencrantz! Finally someone here talks with REASON.
-
ibstilyn
Nov. 30, 2006, 6:38 p.m.but it is a drug, and a company has every right to require that employees come to work substance free -- be the drug legal or illegal.
Umm , what if the employee is epileptic and needs darvon to remain maintained ? This would show up in a drug test..It's legal. Do we allow a firm to establish a "zero tolerance" and not supply sharps containers to insulin users/diabetics?
Do we test for gunpowder residue and say that hunting & target shooting raises the possibility of risk to the employee ? Oh no.. amalgam fillings in the teeth , can't have those . You look like you work out--you might pull a muscle or suffer an enurism. You look like you Don't work out--no fatties here. That's a sporty looking car you have there--ever go over the speed limit? Let's hook up to your onboard "black box" and find out. and on & on we go
-
-
looter
Nov. 30, 2006, 2:23 p.m.Understand and accept the fact that people have every right to smoke. It should not harm others. Rather than throwing them out into the street where whoever walks also gets harmed, buildings should have an area where people can smoke. Airport also should have smoking lounges especially as security lines are becoming a problem. I am a smoker and I have every right to smoke and in the same way everyone walks around have their right to be protected. This company must be shut down for the violation. Rather than making it possible for the employee to smoke safely, this company is harming everyone who walks around.
-
mamasan
Nov. 30, 2006, 5:55 p.m.stop NOW!!!!
It will kill you.
there is a genetic test that tell if you have a gene to clot more than others.
Those who have that gene die very young from clots that form when they smoke.
If you cant afford the test...stop now or you may throw a clot and die instantly.
-
froggs09
Nov. 30, 2006, 11:26 p.m.Looter, I finally agree with on something. I quit smoking 5 years ago after35 years of smoking and I hated all ex-smokers telling me how bad I was, including my father. You have every right to smoke. I always get upset at the nicotine natzi'stelling others have to live. I also gain 50 lbs. and have high blood pressure. Nobody's perfect!
-
-
twincats
Nov. 30, 2006, 2:24 p.m.All good thoughts and support for quitting, Russencrantz, but as a fat person, I have to stand with the smokers on this one.
I don't want to be discriminated against for being 'unhealthy' (which I'm not) My weight has been stable for over 5 years and my BP and blood sugar are low. But I still fear the spectre of job discrimination and this story really chills me.
Nicotine is not an illegal substance and working or driving under the influence of it is not dangerous in any way, nor does it negatively affect job performance as does alcohol. In fact, depriving a nicotine addicted person DOES affect performance.
Criminalizing tobacco from this end is neither fair nor will it be effective.
-
Russencrantz
Nov. 30, 2006, 2:50 p.m.If depriving someone of nicotine affects their job performance, then nicotine DOES affect their job perfomance.
Two people stuck on a 3 hour shift, smoker and a non smoker, which one is going to perform better?
-
-
-
toph1973
Nov. 30, 2006, 3:02 p.m.This is a joke. Come on. So by this logic, the 1 out of every 5 people that smoke are making health ins rates go up for everyone? This is BS. If you want to pick on people that are making health insurance go up, make the one in three people that are fat pay. Obesity is a much bigger health issue that smokers. Logic fails again.
-
RivrWlker
Nov. 30, 2006, 4:14 p.m.Exactly, and the one obese person (admittedly) who posted is completely on the side of the smokers. He's as scared of this stuff as us smokers are for the same exact reason. If we let these nicotene natzi's win, the next set of natzi's will move in for the kill on obese people, and after that the next set of natzi's will move in for the kill of whatever their damned crusade is. The day will come when we'll all be eating soylent green, wearing white uniforms, living in florescent lit barracks, etc. I am never buying another product that Scotts makes. The guy who runs the company has about as much vision as a rhinoceros.
-
-
-
misanoel
Nov. 30, 2006, 3:25 p.m.Coffee, tea and colas contain caffeine (technically a drug); do we ban those? (They do discolor your teeth and provoke increased restroom usage.)
Do we ban turkey sandwiches in the company cafeteria? (Tryptophan makes people sleepy, thereby potentially reducing productivity.)
Should companies avoid hiring people with young children because they tend to use more sick days? (Reproduction is, after all, voluntary.)
As for offensive odors, an office mate at my previous job observed a diet consisting primarily of cruciferous vegetables. The "silent but deadly" side effects defied description. Could firing her be legally justified?
I realize these are extreme examples, but as the trend points toward a more regulated workplace, maybe these scenarios aren't that far fetched.
-
Russencrantz
Nov. 30, 2006, 4:44 p.m.Do you think it's because your boss is nice that they provide free coffee at almost every office?
It's a legal performance enhancing drug. Caffeiene buzzed workers are more effective workers, and you can drink while you work!
Cigarrettes you have to take 10 - 15 minute breaks.
-
-
-
Reachport
Nov. 30, 2006, 4:14 p.m.The government increasingly imposes its will.
Taking this cue, companies formulate invasive rules.
*Your car chimes if you dont have your seat belt on.
*Your riding mower will quit if you get off the seat.
*Your showerhead has a restricted water passage.
*Your engine suffers with adulterated gasoline.
Government, and now Employers, making your life decisions.
-
mntnman444
Nov. 30, 2006, 4:14 p.m.During my early days as an anti drug war warrior,the practice of drug testing was being considered.When I first heard about it,my first thoughts were,they cant do that and I must be paranoid.So I checked out alot of info on it and started telling others.Their reaction was...they cant do that and you must be paranoid.One of my arguements against making someone pee in a bottle to get a job (still sounds ridiculous)was that ,pretty soon they would be checking for nicotine and use of other legal drugs like heart medication,and use that as a reason to deny someone a job.Now I'm reading this...they cant do that! Oh,I must be paranoid.
-
flyrod
Nov. 30, 2006, 4:16 p.m.Being a non-smoker I find it particularly offensive when people smoke in close proximity to me or my family. However, taking a urine or blood test to find nicotine and then firing that person based on the results seems a little illegal. Hope the guy wins the lawsuit and then quits smoking.
-
boston5862
Nov. 30, 2006, 7:06 p.m.A few tobacco producing states like Virginia specifically prohibit firing for smoking. And union members, of course, have rights under their union contract. For most workers in most states, though, the rule is "at will employment". This means the employer can fire you at any time, for any reason or no reason at all. Just like you can quit any time for any reason or no reason at all. So in most states he will have no legal basis for a lawsuit.
-
-
mntnman444
Nov. 30, 2006, 4:17 p.m.The first time I took a pee test,the owner and his wife both failed because they had eaten poppy seed cake.I wonder if the dreaded second hand smoke could make a non smoker show up positive for nicotine?
Oh, there I go, being paranoid again.
-
CarlM82
Dec. 1, 2006, 1:18 a.m.People have sued--and won--over poppyseeds throwing drug tests. I'd be willing to bet that something like this with second hand smoke is possible if you're somewhere such as a smoky sports bar or somewhere like that.
And, oh yeah, I've wanted to try the poppyseed trick for myself. Never did it though.
-
-
mntnman444
Nov. 30, 2006, 4:31 p.m.Instead of this being an issue of smokers vs nonsmokers,why dont we take a look at the practice of these pee tests to start with.
First of all,they are not even as accurate as a polygraph which is not allowed in courts and is illegal for an employer to use as a pre employment requirement because of it's inaccuracy and intrusion on personal freedom.
The drug test is a search,without probable cause.While the constitution doesn't protect us from private companies,it is still wrong and unamerican to make someone prove their innocence.The test is not looking for an illegal substance,it is looking for the metabolites,which are not illegal and produce no psycoactive effects.
The test has nothing to do with workplace safety because it doesn't tell an employer what he needs to know...are you intoxicated on the job.From this story,you can see the potential abuses of this ridiculous,intrusive and inaccurate policy.
-
maryhaze
Nov. 30, 2006, 4:35 p.m.i watched my mother die of lung cancer & am an avid anti-smoker. that being said,i think this is one of the stupidest restrictions i've ever heard of. my dh & both employees smoke & as much as i don't like it, they are adults with the right to do as they like. as for outlawing caffeine, they'll have to pry my Red Bull from my cold dead hand:~)
-
mntnman444
Nov. 30, 2006, 4:44 p.m.LOL! Forget about your redbull...wait till they go after your chocolate (it's a drug)
-
-
mntnman444
Nov. 30, 2006, 4:38 p.m.Just wait until some company starts selling drug test result lists to employers and insurance companys.Can you imagine never being a smoker but maybe from exposure you show up positive for nicotine and the the insurance companys get that info and you cant get a decent rate because you smoked?How about heart meds?Or depression meds?Maybe a fat content test to see how many big macs you eat in a week?
The first 73 comments are shown. Show all 227 comments »
Submitted By:
TomBiro
Tom Biro has been blogging in various places since around 2000, including the soon-to-be-revamped tombiro.com, The Media Drop, and AdJab, a site he was ...
