Company demands workers give up smoking to keep jobs

Scotts Miracle-Gro Co., looking for ways to hold down health insurance costs, will require workers who smoke to quit by October or lose their jobs.

The lawn and garden company wants workers to live healthy lifestyles, said James Hagedorn, the company's chairman and chief executive. Scotts recently opened a $5 million fitness and medical facility.

Scotts is joining other companies focusing on smokers to cut health insurance costs. Some companies make employees who smoke pay higher health insurance premiums, or don't hire them.

"Why would we admit someone into this environment when they're passing risk along to everyone else? Our view is we shouldn't and we won't," Hagedorn said.



http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OH_SMOKING_JOBS_OHOL-?SITE=VARIT&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-12-10-14-34-03

The product is legal and a company RENTS you. They don't own you. Can they also tell you what to eat, who you can have sex with, if you can drink, what kind of car you can drive, etc?

Nothing to be torn about. These companies should have NO RIGHT to tell us what we can and can't do when we are not at work. Very sad state of affairs in America these days. There's a feeling of fear and oppression in the air the likes of which I've never witnessed in my lifetime. The rich keep getting richer, obscenely richer in many cases, and the poor stay poor or get poorer. And now they expect us to bow down to the will of our corporate masters. The whole thing makes me sick. :(

Companies are latching onto the antismoking thing now because they realize that society must tolerate it, or risk hypocrisy. What's the alternative? We've vilified smoking, now it's time to punish the villains, and corporations are happy to collect the fines. Next up will be overweight people, and then people who don't exercise, and then people who drink more than five alcoholic beverages per week, and on and on and on.

PC has made it tolerable - even "moral" - to large numbers of people to think others have a right to tell us what to do and not do "for the good of our selves and society."

This kind of thing will grow like wildfire among employers because lifestyle and behavior decisions do have costs. Through PC, we've monetized behavior and given companies a financial incentive to regulate our nonworking lives.

I don't know what's worse, a nanny state or a nanny corp. Both are the expected result of the rise of the scolding class of PC busybodies.

Peace.

I was instructed by my chair that I cannot return to work until I see a doctor. She doesn't have access to my medical information, and my alleged medical 'condition' was not discussed, ergo...this is another example of an employer treating an employee like property.

...why does the state have to get involved here?

First the goddamn corps tell us what to do, then our very own representatives in government SIDE WITH THE GODDAMN CORPORATE SUITS???

What the hell?

Is that corporations already WERE profiling employees and making demands on their personal and private behavior.

Then the state moves in and enshrines it in law. This of course is not a good thing, however the corporate abuse of private citizens is now described in law and as such these corporations and wealthy individuals have to now follow it to the letter. This is how you fight back!

Take for example the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act says that the government has the right to look at your library records, your book purchasing records. Well, this is a joke, because if some police or private entity, such as a corporation, wanted to monitor you, they could bribe staff, arrange various 'social engineering' escapades, use private intelligence AND local police to get the info they want. Well, now there is a law which articulates EXACTLY what they are doing and how they should go about doing it. Of course those individuals who were doing it before are still doing it....only now they might be in violation of The Patriot Act. This is what I've learned from two decades of harassment by police and their 'employers' - certain corporations.

That does not mean that ANY of these laws are any good - what it does do is illustrate how corporations have subtly worked the legal system in their favor by depriving their employees of more and more liberties. At this point, handwringing and defeatism aren't going to help any - that legislation can and must be challenged openly in the courts, and should be.

There's a (really) old saying about the law:

Laws are spider's webs which, if anything small falls
into them they ensnare it, but large things break through and escape.
- Solon, ca. 600 BC

Peace

When they tell you to quit smoking or to exercise you do it. And if you don't and they take your health insurance away, don't bitch. You did it to yourself.
Duckie

I hope?

...of your refrigerator to make sure you aren't loading up on those saturated fats! People with high cholesterol cost money, donchaknow?

and I asked about pregnant women. We know that older women have a higher risk of having babies with disabilities. Women who drink can have babies with severe lifelong disabilities. So will they fire any women who drink or are over 40 and pregnant?

not one little bit.

What will they demand next?

I do not smoke, used to and it is a terrible thing. It does reflect on health care costs but so does everything from who you might be sleeping with to what you eat or where and how you spend your time. Will they regulate what your hobbies are? After all, we got turned down once for insurance because we were scuba divers.

Nope, I understand what they are doing and why but it is going way too far for your place of business to have that much pull over your private life.

I don't want my employer nosing into my private life. They rent my skills for 8 hours a day and as long as I do a good job that should be their ONLY concern. Our employers should not be our health care brokers.

some how have higher co pays?

It is already being done elsewhere.

If a universal health care system was inplemented, it would be inevitable to keep costs down.

And with the costs spread out throughout the entire population of America, there would be less reason for "cull the herd" as it were. I shouldn't have to worry that I can't get or retain a job because I contracted HIV 20 years ago because of the expenses involved and at the same time, I don't think it really is my employer's problem that I have HIV and my medications alone cost in the neighborhood of 12000 dollars a year.

So what is the alternative? Die? Stop working? I'm not disabled. I haven't missed a day of work due to HIV since I was diagnosed and I am usually one of the most productive workers in any business I have worked for. So where does that leave people like myself?

What is your suggestion? Do you have one?

Plus, we wouldn't have 43 million people without access to even the most basic health care.

I'm not going to go into the many reasons we need to move away from employer provided health coverage. That's already becoming more and more self-evident.

It's the Suede Denim Secret Police!

They've come for your uncool niece

Zen fascists will control you

100% natural

You will jog for the master race

And always wear the happy face


Dead Kennedys - California Uber Alles

It doesn't reflect that, however, if you are fairly young and especially have plans to quit, as I do (just as soon as I don't feel harassed, that is, but I am being a good citizen of this hijacked fascist republic and am using the patch).

If I use a legal product on my own time the company has no say. Period. Will they fire people that drink? Alcohol causes health problems also? What about people that are overweight? "Go on a diet you fat bastard or you're fired!"....I don't think so...

And this isn't the first company to use it.

Suppose I decide to play along, and then a year later it hits me that my free time isn't really mine? After all, the company's property doe not extend onto my own property... does it?

Here's what I think the employees should do: play along, let it go, and then a year later, file a lawsuit for unpaid wages over the period of one year- and claim a 24/7 workweek, including overtime.

See how it flies. I'm thinking it may in fact have a chance, because corporations are persons and one person cannot "own" another. Therefore, while the company may employ a person to perform work (and in such a case where nominal compensation is given for said work) , they do not own that person and therefore cannot restrict that other person's doings. Further, if they decide to enforce the smoking ban and the person complies, it can be argued that beyond that moment in time, the employee is in fact "on the clock" all day long, waking or sleeping.

Why? Because they have to abide by their employer's rules, even when off company property. They ought to be paid at their base rate plus overtime for that.

The point is, no corporate or commercial entity should be able or allowed to restrict the activities of any employee when they are off "company time". If you're going to insist that they in fact are able to do this, pay up, because you owe me for abiding by your company rules all the time, even when away from company property and company officials.

And don't you dare send them to my home to see if I'm "living right". I'll beat 'em up. :)

They can't.

and the point would be moot.

* are fat
* are dangerously under-weight
* don't exercise
* eat too much red meat and/or fried food
* run with scissors
* drink more than one beer a day
* enjoy anything more dangerous than walking as a sport
* have children
* don't own pets
* own pets
* read too much (bad for the eyes)
* fly in airplanes
* work in offices
* anything else that can contribute to health problems

sure - let's charge people for everything that is possibly a health risk, and make them lose their jobs for everything which may be considered risky behavior. :Rolling Eyes:



and by the way, I never make fun of over-weight people having been pretty big growing up, but I have to say this: obesity is up there with smoking in the number of deaths and health complications it causes, yet I can't imagine a huge argument between fat and skinny people being allowed.

Call me crazy, but I see this as an excuse. An excuse to keep costs down so that CEO's can continue to make hundreds of millions of dollars. I mean, come on! Do you know how hard it must be to live on only millions?

I also wonder if things like this and drug testing (which is also in$urance related) are also an excuse to outsource more.

"Hey! Bob has sex with his boyfriend and smokes! Let's fire his ass and hire 10 kids in Taiwan, and use the remaining 90% of his pay to give ourselves fat bonuses!"

Sorry, but this shit is driving me insane. Sometimes I fear that Greed will destroy us all.

is the only thing that will stop this Big Brotherism at work, the galloping corporate fascism that seeks to control every minute of our lives.

Relieved of the burden of ever escalating health care premiums, companies would be a whole lot less concerned with the proclivities of its employees.

Companies would still have the right to restrict those outdoor butt breaks, though, so I'd suggest three pack a day Charlie investigate using the patch or the gum during working hours.

as a light smoker who usually doesn't even take smoke breaks in the day time (more of a social thing), I agree. I don't care if people take a break or two, and I will say some people I know bust their asses so they can take an extra break, but many abuse it too.

Those costs have to be paid somehow. It would then be the government stepping in and telling you to quit smoking. I think an employer doing this is a little more tolerable than the government.

and it's very likely smoking is the largest single contributor to health care costs for them.

But, it's still an intrusion into employees' private lives and is only one of many contributors to health care costs, most of which they don't seem to have any objection to.

Just for the hell of it, I'd kinda like to see what OSHA has to say about their working conditions and the workmen's comp claims in their plants from chemical exposure.

Seems they just might be a bit hazzardous to their employees as well(a supposition, I have no idea). If they get respiratory disease they won't be able to pin it on smoking so do they really want to go here? Interesting thought.

:thumbsup:

They should pay higher health care costs and not smoke in public where others will be exposed to their poisonous emissions.

since they might eat to much and that might hurt them or kill them and alcohol drinkers should pay higher rates since they might drink to much and might get hurt or killed and people that have sex outside of marriage should pay higher rates since they might get an STD and that might hurt or kill them and sky divers should pay higher rates since they might get hurt or killed and I could go on and on and on and on. This is nothing more than trying to control others and discrimination. And if we want to complain about the smoker's smoke there should be areas for smokers to smoke (it is legal). Myself, I am more concerned about what these companies are putting into our air and water than I am about a person smoking.

I assume you are being sarcastic, but what you are saying is true. Those people SHOULD be paying higher rates. It is not discrimination. Discrimination would be charging men a higher premium because they statistically live shorter than women. These people have the choice to not do these things. It may not be moral to pick out a certain group first, but it certainly is fair.

someone wants to control and find fault in another person they will find something (anything)and then use it against them. So it might be smokers now but next time it might be someone who eats candy or drink sodas or uses salt on their food. These companies should be fined and sued for discrimination and invasion of a person's privacy.

I think if they have incentives like that, and they bring people in to teach aerobics classes and yoga. And no one is allowed to smoke on the property. They have to drive away to do it. They can't smoke in their cars if they are on the property either. I love that. I can now live my daily life without smelling that crap, and I'm THRILLED.
Duckie

it's ridiculous.....soon they'll require church going and grace before every meal... welcume to georgebushamerka

according to another company that is already doing this. Soon, thanks to the Repuke corporatocracy, we will be testing babies to see if they have any factors that may make them susceptible to thinking in non-productive ways, or having same sex physical attaractions, or inclinations towards non-white or undesireable physical attributes. Wouldn't want to be one of those babies, or a parent with suspected genes or whatever.

This is yet another one of those WTF moments that strangely started about five years ago....

Profiling 'troublesome' families, at least. I mean, if your grandparents were 'communists' or revolutionaries, you are cursed and you have no say in it.

Can't have those dangerous thoughts.

Total control.

my employers health care costs. When will I be told to stop breathing?

Next thing you know they will tell you who you can date. Oh wait, they can! And how will they enforce it? There was a rumor that the employee was seen at a coffee shop on the weekends lighting up? How will they investigate that?

Drug tests determine what you do during your time off work. The metabolites stay in your system for ages. So if you smoke cigarettes, arguably much more harmful than drugs, you therefore forfeit your right to employment. Welcome to the fascist way.

So it is not fascist to have a company turn you down if you do illegal things in your free time, even if it is YOUR time. Prohibiting smoking, on the other hand, is ridiculous.

clock, the company should have the right to fire you.

Where were all you Marlboro Militia Types when they came for the casual refer users?

If their hire dates were prior to the smoking ban, the Inc's insurance company should have to pony up.

That'd be interesting.

Scotts Miracle Gro Company - Lawn Fertilizer, Weed Insect Control, Grass Seed
Stock Symbol SMG

14111 Scottslawn Rd
Marysville, OH (USA) 43041

Phone: 937 644 0011
Fax: 937 644 7614
Toll Free: 888 270 3714

www.scotts.com



Products / Services
Fertilizers, Anhydrous Ammonia, Phosphate, Nitrate Insecticide , Pesticides
Herbicide, Mold Fungicide Seeds, Hybrid Genetically Modified, High Yield


======

and they're worried about cigarettes?

It's called a "slippery slope".

First tobacco, then what next? Junk food? If you have heart disease, do they force you to undergo radical treatment at your expense? Do they issue a list of approved "safe" vehicles to be purchased and driven? Do they proclaim a ban on frequenting certain undesirable neighborhoods?

This is a return to the "good" old days of the large employers, especially manufacturers such as Ford et. al., basically owning your entire family. You were expected to go home from work to your neat little house and spend your evenings thinking of the possibility of receiving a visit from company inspectors, who would examine your household to make sure you were maintaining their standards of approval. If you failed, you were fired on the spot.

Welcome back to corporate control of your entire life.

as a preventive measure :eyes:

are we going to stop them from rock climbing to in case they injure themselves? what somebody does on their own time is their own business. i could understand if the company didn't want them smoking AT work, but at home...

that their big-fat-republican CEO (just a guess) give up his expansive cigars?

Anyhow..If companies would have a gym and good staff support I would not be as bad!

here you go.... please read this very interesting interview with him ...

Here's a quote:

JH: Yeah. So I came home, but I was still a complete animal, really long hair, and druggies, and all this crap. I got a job working in a print shop. It was non-union, but it was lithography, 4-color printing, and all these blue-collar guys working in the print shop became like my older brother, kind of. Probably the most important thing that ever happened in my life. This was right at the tail end of Vietnam, and I decided - I went from being stupidly left to being pretty seriously right in my view of politics in general. That job working in the print shop was a big deal to me. And then -

You guys should have a field day with this.....


http://www.nobodiestosomebodies.com/interviews.php?&id=jim_hagedorn

I will write to Scott's, and advise them that there are other products which I find equal to theirs, and that this policy of interfering in their worker's private lives will prevent me from buying their products from now on. I am only one person, but I do have a very large collection of antique roses, and many other plants. I do spend more than most on gardening products. Will it make a difference to them? No, it won't...but neither will I support their interference in their employee's private lives.

I have a very, very dear cousin, more like a sister, who weighs probably 370 lbs. What if her employer decides that she isn't worth retaining unless she loses 200 lbs.? Universal health care is the only logical solution. This policy will grow to include weight, alcohol intake, exercise, and a variety of other things. I detest the society we are becoming, the bottom line society, which values us not as individuals, but as how much we contribute to corporate interest's bottom line.

it might. Any customer who bothers to write out a whole letter and put it in the mail, unhappy with a company policy, and who is going to stop buying their products, will get some attention. If you say you're going to speak to others, or write letters to editors, or blog against them--or, even more, start a boycott--I think they'll perk up. They do not like unhappy, letter writing customers. And if more of us (especially customers) do it, we could conceivably inspire a change of policy. More likely, they'll just sic PR on the problem, and try to blather their way out of it. But it's worth a try.

I objected to all this invasive crap back when they started requiring workers' and students' urine samples. Fascism pure and simple. No other word for it.

My employer was starting to crack down on smoking and trying to get us going into smoking cessation programs. No one got fired, but we were strongly encouraged to quit last year. So I did. The downside is that I gained about 50 pounds since then. Now they want us all to join Weight Watchers. This intrusion into our personal lives is starting to take on a lose-lose flavor. If they begin to insist that I lose weight, I may have to go back to smoking.

This increasing intrusion into our private lives is a dangerous and spreading evil. No surprise to me, though, as we only have to look at our dear leader's example of "my way or the highway", no compromise, no other views considered.

After I hit my 30s and started gaining weight I thought if I started smoking I could get the weight off, since when I was a young smoker I was nice and slim. The only thing that happened was that I became a chubby smoker.

As an ex-smoker, I agree that smoking stinks, but employers should butt out of their employees' private lives.

I don't think it's the right of the company to intervene in the personal, non-workplace habits of its employees. That sets a dangerous precedent where you're fired if you don't follow the overall 'image' perscribed by the executives.

That company should:
Advocate for a single payer national health system
Support wellness programs
Support voluntary smoking cessation.

Any company that makes such demands on its employers is probably DRIVING their employees to smoke, or is at least making it too stressful for them to quit as it is.

I quit for two whole years, I know it's possible. I only started again because of the stress.

I am not a smoker, but this is seriously stepping on their rights. There will always be a reason put forth to rationalize this sort of thing. It will come around to overweight people, it will come around to other things. Employers do not own you. Alot of people think this is OK because it is framed as a health issue. I understand if smokers are asked to smoke away from others, or even not to smoke at all on the job, but what people do on their own time is not the employers domain.

now charges people who smoke or chew tobacco an extra 40 dollars a month for their insurance.

cancer rate. Nearly every third house on his street has a family member fighting cancer in it. My father is SURE that there's a case for Erin Brockovitch involving Scott's, and he's probably right. I'm all for encouraging people to quit smoking (as smoking benefits no one except GOP funding corporations), but Scott's needs to look at what THEY are doing to harm their employees!

You would think they would want them to smoke to hide the OTHER bad things in the air or water around there.

drink, ride a motorcycle, mountain climb, run marathons, race cars, ski, use a chain saw, play volley ball,blah, blah, blah, you will be fired. Who monitors the bosses to make sure they follow the rules when they're in private jets, or in their private clubs. Fucking CEO's don't care about workers health. This is about controlling the workers outside the time clock.

n/t

I've never smoked. I don't like smoking. I don't think it should be allowed in the workplace, and I want to be able to go into public facilities without having to breath that crap. But this is ridiculous. Employers don't own people. They have a say over their activities during working hours, that's the agreement between the employer and the employee. Outside of that time an employer should have NO say about any legal activities people engage in.

This brings an interesting question to mind. Are the tobacco companies fighting this? I would think that they would. We're seeing more and more instances where some corporate or right-wing policy treads on the feet of some other corporation. The "war on Christmas" bullshit treads on the feet of major retailers. The complaints of media indecency treads on the feet of media corporations. I'm sure there are other examples. Will the whole right-wing/corporate machine eventually turn on itself? Can we somehow prod it to do so? Divide and conquer can be a powerful strategy.

You hit on exactly why. Profits for one corporation come from the "blind eye" of consumerism. If consumers no longer have a "blind eye," well, things get interesting.

Interesting point you have made here, BTW.

I can almost guarantee.

how will scots know if someone is smoking on their own time at home, a bar etc

Yep- a piss test. For a legal substance.

That's how Weyco is doing it.

That's what we had to do when we applied for some insurance. Rates were lower if you didn't smoke. My hubby did at the time and they denied him because of his preexisting medical problems. Needless to say, we found insurance elsewhere.

in different populations. Ever read the label on their stuff? What hypocrites.

I'm one of the strongest supporters of banning public smoking, but no corporation should have any say in what you do, legally, outside their premises.

in the US. Cigarettes do.

First, I do smoke. I know it is bad, I know it is horrible, and I wish I could understand why it is so hard to quit...

That said, I am a gardener, and an organic one at that. Scott's products come nowhere near my lawn because of their overzealous use of horrific chemicals. I use natural remedies for gardening problems at all times. If there is not one, that plant dies. Survival of the fittest until I find an organic answer...

Now, there's a lesson for some of you, because here I am, not caring about my health - since I smoke - but believe you me I care about the health of my soil and a non-organic product comes no where near it. Go figure...?

I'd imagine long-term exposure to the yard care chemicals is not good. How many posters have mentioned pets dying shortly after their yard was sprayed?

...both died of a "rare" canine leukemia before six years old. They were smallish dogs that the vet assured her would live longer than most big dogs.

Her lawn was sprayed, without fail, a couple of times a year. I always told her to be careful with that crap, but she did not pay attention. Now I honestly think she wonders because I have an organic lawn/garden and one very old and very happy 12-year old dog...and my girl isn't a small breed. Rather the opposite, in fact; 100+ pounds.

Obviously ancedotal. But it sure makes me think.

What I wish my company would do is make the corporate properties non-smoking zones. Smoking should not be permitted ANYWHERE on the property. This would force many smokers to quit. Also, smokers should have to pay MUCH higher insurance rates. But, I also think drinking coffee and poor nutrition are also health issues. They should not fire people for what they legally do on their own time in their own homes. I don't see over-weight people being punished. I personally would think twice before hiring a smoker. They take smoke breaks all day and they end up with health problems. Plus, many of them are republicans, and I would not hire a republican either.

Cuz it sure ain't the fuck easy!!

I'm glad California has passed laws mandating smoke-free buildings, because secondhand smoke is a real health issue. And over the last 20+ years social awareness has grown to the point that I finally gave away my one ashtray because my friends all voluntarily smoked outside.

But this business of tying a person's job to whether or not they smoke at all is just awful. I say: The day the US Government bans all tobacco advertising in all media is the day we can talk about it.

Tobacco is a legal, highly addictive drug that has been extensively pushed by Big Tobacco. Most adults who smoke would quit if they could, but they can't. My sympathy really is with smokers like my mother and my daughter, who have tried to quit over and over and over.

Mom finally made it stick after she got a cancer diagnosis, but my entire childhood was punctuated by my mother beating herself up because she'd failed another smoking-cessation program. My daughter is 29 and has been smoking since she was 12 (and yes, I wanted to kill her when I found out) and I quite frankly blame the Joe Camel campaign, which was explicitly designed to reel in underage smokers. My son was also caught by Joe Camel at an early age, but for whatever quirk of gender and body-chemistry, he finally gave it up without too much effort.

It's one thing for companies to be proactive about enabling their employees to achieve good health, it's quite another to cherry-pick the population in this manner. This is a wrong-headed and cruel approach.

And yes, we do need national health care, complete with those proactive incentives for helping people stay healthy.

Hekate

- because it will be next.