Employee gets fired for smoking.....at home!

[Guest slamminshaun]

What you do in your own home is now fair game for employers. And some of you thought I was crazy when I suggested earlier this year this was going to happen. We're not talking about a small company here either....

Scott's Lawn Care employee fired for smoking at home

[V. Barbarino]

I'm all for it. He could have worked at the Lawn Doctor instead, he choose this job knowingly violating their policy.

[Guest slamminshaun]

I'm all for it. He could have worked at the Lawn Doctor instead, he choose this job knowingly violating their policy.

Many companies are implementing these policies now on employees who have worked for the company for years! As long as what you do in your home is not deemed illegal, what right does an employer have to dictate what you do in the privacy of your own home?

Things like this set a precedence for other things, such as what you eat, sexual orientation, etc. I hate cigarettes as much as the next guy, but take your blinders off and look at the big picture.

[V. Barbarino]

I'm all for it. He could have worked at the Lawn Doctor instead' date=' he choose this job knowingly violating their policy.

[/quote']

Many companies are implementing these policies now on employees who have worked for the company for years! As long as what you do in your home is not deemed illegal, what right does an employer have to dictate what you do in the privacy of your own home?

Things like this set a precedence for other things, such as what you eat, sexual orientation, etc. I hate cigarettes as much as the next guy, but take your blinders off and look at the big picture.

The bigger picture is that he causes the company to loose more money than a none smoking employee. So why not eliminate that risk and fire smokers and lower the costs for health care, all the while I"m sure the company offered a smoking cessation program.

[Guest slamminshaun]

I'm all for it. He could have worked at the Lawn Doctor instead, he choose this job knowingly violating their policy.

Many companies are implementing these policies now on employees who have worked for the company for years! As long as what you do in your home is not deemed illegal, what right does an employer have to dictate what you do in the privacy of your own home?

Things like this set a precedence for other things, such as what you eat, sexual orientation, etc. I hate cigarettes as much as the next guy, but take your blinders off and look at the big picture.

The bigger picture is that he causes the company to loose more money than a none smoking employee. So why not eliminate that risk and fire smokers and lower the costs for health care, all the while I"m sure the company offered a smoking cessation program.

How about employees that eat fast food? Clogging up your arteries causes them to lose more money than someone who eats Tofu and Wheatgrass all day. Should we fire employees that don't abide by a strict diet of whole foods?

[V. Barbarino]

I'm all for it. He could have worked at the Lawn Doctor instead' date=' he choose this job knowingly violating their policy.

[/quote']

Many companies are implementing these policies now on employees who have worked for the company for years! As long as what you do in your home is not deemed illegal, what right does an employer have to dictate what you do in the privacy of your own home?

Things like this set a precedence for other things, such as what you eat, sexual orientation, etc. I hate cigarettes as much as the next guy, but take your blinders off and look at the big picture.

The bigger picture is that he causes the company to loose more money than a none smoking employee. So why not eliminate that risk and fire smokers and lower the costs for health care, all the while I"m sure the company offered a smoking cessation program.

How about employees that eat fast food? Clogging up your arteries causes them to lose more money than someone who eats Tofu and Wheatgrass all day. Should we fire employees that don't abide by a strict diet of whole foods?

Eating is a natural act of life, while eating fast food is not a good idea and certainly affects health care costs, it's not addictive.

[Guest slamminshaun]

Eating is a natural act of life, while eating fast food is not a good idea and certainly affects health care costs, it's not addictive.

And the fact it's not addictive makes treating heart disease cheaper? I figured you would REALLY support firing employees that eat fast food. I mean, think about it....since it's not addictive as you said, they're making a perfectly conscious choice to eat lousy food with negative financial consequences to their employer. Biting into that Big Mac all the while thinking they're sticking it to the man! Time for big, bad corporations like Scott's Lawns to show them who's boss....I'm sure constant exposure to lawn chemicals is healthy.

[Guest JMT]

it doesnt have to do with health so much as it has to do with $. when insurance companies start to add a stipulations for the insured's fast food consumption, then diet will matter. but how that can ever be measured is unclear, while smoking risks are pretty cut and dry. this company could have had a blanket health policy that was for non-smokers only. obviously, smokers cost more money.

i dont have a problem with the termination, as long as he had advanced warning of what would happen if he violated the rules.

[V. Barbarino]

I don't buy into the slippery slope theory. For example, when actors are filming big time movies they are not allowed in their contracts to do things such as racing cars or sky diving..

Or, how about NFL qbs not allowed to ride Rice Rockets?

The company can set their guidelines and if you don't like it, don't work there. This company choose cigs I see no problem with it.

Now can a test tell if you have a few cigs or a lot, I don't know, but I can tell you, this guy will loose this case. There was this couple who aren't allowed to smoke in their apt and a judge upheld it. They smoke across the street.

[Guest jbit]

other reasons to be terminated from Scott's Lawn...

Going out in the sun (you might get skin cancer)

Driving (you might get in an accident)

walking (you might get mugged)

swimming in the ocean (you might get attacked by a shark)

Oh, and when at work you have to wear protective body amour to reduce the risk of a disability lawsuit.

[Guest coach]

As long as what you do in your home is not deemed illegal' date=' what right does an employer have to dictate what you do in the privacy of your own home?

[/quote']

Under our current laws, they have quite a lot of right to dictate what you do in your offtime.

[Guest Miss_Digital]

other reasons to be terminated from Scott's Lawn...

Going out in the sun (you might get skin cancer)

Driving (you might get in an accident)

walking (you might get mugged)

swimming in the ocean (you might get attacked by a shark)

Oh, and when at work you have to wear protective body amour to reduce the risk of a disability lawsuit.

they might as well

this is just ridiculous

maybe they wouldn’t have fire him if he had smoked weed in stead since it has less carcinogens than cigarettes lol

[Guest jamu]

Every man should have the freedom to do as they wish. If you don't like it or it costs you money I hear China and Iran are beautiful. People and companies that do things like that obviously have some serious issues control issues. This is just an excellent example of how insurance and medical companies are running this country. Not the people.

It also says alot about the people that support these policies. Psychologically and emotionally. Its pretty out in the clear. Sad really.

[all4tribal1414779019]

In DC you can get fine and possibly arrested if caught drinking wine or any alcoholic beverages on your own front porch!

[Guest coach]

Every man should have the freedom to do as they wish.

I totally agree. If I own a business and you, as one of my employees, are off smoking and costing me more money on my insurance premiums, I should have the right to fire you, if I wish. Correct?

[V. Barbarino]

Some companies don't fire the employees, however they do charge them a lot more for their benefits which I'm also ok with it..

The whats next theory is bogus, though NYC was suppose to rule on trans fat today, I hope it passed, next up, fructose corn syrup.

Wait here it is

[Guest swirlundergrounder]

I'm all for it. He could have worked at the Lawn Doctor instead' date=' he choose this job knowingly violating their policy.

[/quote']

Many companies are implementing these policies now on employees who have worked for the company for years! As long as what you do in your home is not deemed illegal, what right does an employer have to dictate what you do in the privacy of your own home?

Things like this set a precedence for other things, such as what you eat, sexual orientation, etc. I hate cigarettes as much as the next guy, but take your blinders off and look at the big picture.

The bigger picture is that he causes the company to loose more money than a none smoking employee. So why not eliminate that risk and fire smokers and lower the costs for health care, all the while I"m sure the company offered a smoking cessation program.

How about employees that eat fast food? Clogging up your arteries causes them to lose more money than someone who eats Tofu and Wheatgrass all day. Should we fire employees that don't abide by a strict diet of whole foods?

You see.. That's another reason why I'm practically un-fireable.

I eat tofu and I don't smoke..

[Guest slamminshaun]

it doesnt have to do with health so much as it has to do with $. when insurance companies start to add a stipulations for the insured's fast food consumption, then diet will matter. but how that can ever be measured is unclear, while smoking risks are pretty cut and dry. this company could have had a blanket health policy that was for non-smokers only. obviously, smokers cost more money.

i dont have a problem with the termination, as long as he had advanced warning of what would happen if he violated the rules.

Drinking risks are pretty cut and dry too, otherwise they wouldn't ask you about it when you apply for coverage. Should we fire everyone who consumes alcohol?

[Guest JMT]

it doesnt have to do with health so much as it has to do with $. when insurance companies start to add a stipulations for the insured's fast food consumption' date=' then diet will matter. but how that can ever be measured is unclear, while smoking risks are pretty cut and dry. this company could have had a blanket health policy that was for non-smokers only. obviously, smokers cost more money.

i dont have a problem with the termination, as long as he had advanced warning of what would happen if he violated the rules.

[/quote']

Drinking risks are pretty cut and dry too, otherwise they wouldn't ask you about it when you apply for coverage. Should we fire everyone who consumes alcohol?

a glass or 2 of red wine a day has health benefits while cigarettes have none. how are you going to prove how much a person is drinking?

[Guest slamminshaun]

it doesnt have to do with health so much as it has to do with $. when insurance companies start to add a stipulations for the insured's fast food consumption, then diet will matter. but how that can ever be measured is unclear, while smoking risks are pretty cut and dry. this company could have had a blanket health policy that was for non-smokers only. obviously, smokers cost more money.

i dont have a problem with the termination, as long as he had advanced warning of what would happen if he violated the rules.

Drinking risks are pretty cut and dry too, otherwise they wouldn't ask you about it when you apply for coverage. Should we fire everyone who consumes alcohol?

a glass or 2 of red wine a day has health benefits while cigarettes have none. how are you going to prove how much a person is drinking?

Alcohol tests becoming commonplace

More and more employers are administering alcohol tests, that's a fact. Again, if you let smokers' rights be infringed upon, you better be ready for YOUR rights to be infringed upon. Now I know damn well when you and DDG get together and throw them down, you're not doing it for the "health benefits". Should you lose your job on Monday because you got drunk on Saturday night at your own condo? I don't think you should.

[Guest JMT]

commonplace at halfway houses perhaps. i have never heard of any company testing and/or terminating an employee for alcohol, outside of someone actually being drunk while on the job. however, my company does not insure me, i pay for my own insurance. that isnt the case with the guy in the article. not to mention the fact that regular smokers are prone to taking countless breaks throughout the day.

[Guest jamu]

how is forcing someone to pay more being "free"? how about the right to keep the money one earns? everyone should have the right to pay the smallest insurance premium possible, not a higher one because one idiot in your company wants to smoke.

Your right because we should give up personal freedoms because they cost us money. Because our right as US citizens should be suspended when they cost us money. That says a lot about your thinking and your ability to see the overall big picture.

[V. Barbarino]

how is forcing someone to pay more being "free"? how about the right to keep the money one earns? everyone should have the right to pay the smallest insurance premium possible, not a higher one because one idiot in your company wants to smoke.

Your right because we should give up personal freedoms because they cost us money. Because our right as US citizens should be suspended when they cost us money. That says a lot about your thinking and your ability to see the overall big picture.

What if the company can no longer afford to provide health care coverage to their employees and a single mother of 3 kids now has no medical simply because the smokers jack the prices up? Then what would you say about personal freedom?

Fact is, a small business have a tough time providing benefits and companies such as Ford and GM loose money on every car built due to health care..

[Guest slamminshaun]

commonplace at halfway houses perhaps. i have never heard of any company testing and/or terminating an employee for alcohol, outside of someone actually being drunk while on the job. however, my company does not insure me, i pay for my own insurance. that isnt the case with the guy in the article. not to mention the fact that regular smokers are prone to taking countless breaks throughout the day.

It's being tested at companies like "SunTrust", which sometimes is a halfway house....but that's for another thread. Now, I've never heard of anyone being fired for testing positive for alcohol, but if you asked me a year ago I would've said the same about smoking cigarettes. So just because you've never heard of it yet, doesn't mean some "do-gooder nanny" isn't going to try to impose their will on the rest of us after firing people for smoking has become the norm. MARK MY WORDS....companies will start testing/hiring/firing based on alcohol tests that reveal you drank on your own time. I'll be around to post it too....

[Guest JMT]

how is forcing someone to pay more being "free"? how about the right to keep the money one earns? everyone should have the right to pay the smallest insurance premium possible, not a higher one because one idiot in your company wants to smoke.

Your right because we should give up personal freedoms because they cost us money. Because our right as US citizens should be suspended when they cost us money. That says a lot about your thinking and your ability to see the overall big picture.

your rights shouldnt include putting unwanted financial burden on others. it says a lot that you dont support the rights of a group over one person's habit. since youre so generous in sharing insurance risk, send me a check to help pay for my car insurance.