• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Boycott Scotts Due to Smoking Policy

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes

dwimmer38

Junior
I urge everyone to boycott Scotts and Miracle Grow products. Whether you are a smoker or not, if we let companies get away with these types of policies then it's just a matter of time before they go after other legal activities and/or habits in the privacy of your own home. I recently sent this letter to the CEO of Scotts in Marysville:

<table id="INCREDIMAINTABLE" border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody> <tr> <td id="INCREDITEXTREGION" style="padding-right: 0px; font-size: 12pt; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px;" width="100%">


I recently learned that Scotts is going to institute a policy that forces people to quit smoking or risk losing their job. When I first heard this I couldn't believe that a company could legally and morally take this position. I want you to know that I am writing my congressman, the governor, the president, and all the major newspapers and radio stations regarding this stupid Draconian measure. I am a highly skilled professional and from this point on, I would never consider working for Scotts. I will also urge all my friends and neighbors to boycott your products indefinitely. It's a sad day when a company feels they can control what goes on in the employee's home. If you want to save on health care why don't you have someone come into your employees home and test their blood for fatty foods and lack of exercise? Maybe after the smoking policy you could come up with a policy that prohibits another legal product called "alcohol"? Were you aware that over 30% of the people smoke in this country and have every right to do so? If I hear of anyone losing this job over this stupidity I will be the first one to contact the ACLU. I strongly urge you to reconsider this ridiculous policy. Once companies go down this path, it's just a matter of time before other "legal" activities and habits in people's homes are targeted in the name of supposedly saving the company money.
</td></tr> <tr> <td id="INCREDIFOOTER" width="100%"> <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody> <tr> <td width="100%"></td> <td id="INCREDISOUND" align="center" valign="bottom">
</td> <td id="INCREDIANIM" align="center" valign="bottom">
</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>
 
I received this response from the Scotts CEO:

Good morning. Thanks for your note. The issue that you seem to be ignoring is this; we (all associates and the company) pay the bill for a habit that we know causes serious health issues. Our costs have been increasing at double digit rates for probably the last decade. Smoking and obesity are the major drivers of health issues/costs in our time. We are doing virtually everything we can do legally to try and help with weight issues. Employers are left footing the bill and at the end of the day must step up to provide solutions to protect the physical and financial health of our associates. What’s your solution to the smoking problem – let everyone else pay for the smoker’s increased medical expenses? If what folks decide to do at home forces their company and co-workers to increase the cost of their insurance – that’s OK? Never mind that smoking kills. Finally – I can’t stop folks from smoking if they don’t want to. I can, in many states, ask them to work for another company.


Here was my response:

Thanks for your reply. I see health care costs as just a part of doing business. Tobacco use is legal, and with few exceptions I doubt the average smoker has any higher medical expenses than a non-smoker. To me it is a freedom issue. If you go down the path you are pursuing then anything can come next. Why not say anyone more than 10 lbs overweight will be fired? Eating too much is a bad habit as well, and it can be controlled. Leading a sedentary lifestyle is a bad habit, and it can be controlled. Why not say anyone not showing up to the company gym three times a week will be fired? Why should those of us in shape pay the added medical expenses of those who are not? What about the medical expenses associated with alcohol use? What you are proposing is "illegal" in 29 states. IF Scott's has a presence in one of these states then aren't you discriminating against someone based solely on their geographical location? I am going to fax everyone I know in government to try and get the Ohio laws changed to match the 29 states that I mentioned. I am disappointed by your decision to even consider this type of thing. Rest assured I will be using your competitor's products in the future.
 
Upvote 0
I wrestle with this...

I lost a very good friend in September to cancer... 52 yrs old... with kids... incessant smoker... damn I wish Dan was still here...

but if this policy was adopted by Goodyear... Dan would have had to quit Goodyear because there was no way he could quit smoking...
 
Upvote 0
dwimmer38 said:
Tobacco use is legal, and with few exceptions I doubt the average smoker has any higher medical expenses than a non-smoker.
Click to expand...
:lol:

Why not say anyone more than 10 lbs overweight will be fired? Eating too much is a bad habit as well, and it can be controlled. Leading a sedentary lifestyle is a bad habit, and it can be controlled. Why not say anyone not showing up to the company gym three times a week will be fired?
Click to expand...

I interpreted from his response that they would consider a similar approach to obesity were it legal and/or practical. Specifically, he says:

We are doing virtually everything we can do legally to try and help with weight issues.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
methomps said:
:lol:



 Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Why not say anyone more than 10 lbs overweight will be fired? Eating too much is a bad habit as well, and it can be controlled. Leading a sedentary lifestyle is a bad habit, and it can be controlled. Why not say anyone not showing up to the company gym three times a week will be fired? </td> </tr> </tbody></table>


I interpreted from his response that they would consider a similar approach to obesity were it legal and/or practical. Specifically, he says:
Quote:
We are doing virtually everything we can do legally to try and help with weight issues.
Click to expand...

methomps - I understand your response, but I think that the underlying issue is much more insidious. What it boils down to is one question.

Should companies have the right to dictate the behavior of their employees when they are not on company premises, or when not on company business?

That boils down in my mind to a constitutional argument - the right to privacy.
 
Upvote 0
I think this is a good move for Scotts. The health care industry and the medical insurance systems are out of control and companies have to come up with cost saving solutions. Of course, a 2 tier system for smokers and non-smokers would solve some problems but this setup is currently illegal and the company would not be saving any money. Scotts is not saying you can't smoke at your own home, etc. You just can't smoke and work for them.
 
Upvote 0
OSU1978 said:
I think this is a good move for Scotts. The health care industry and the medical insurance systems are out of control and companies have to come up with cost saving solutions. Of course, a 2 tier system for smokers and non-smokers would solve some problems but this setup is currently illegal and the company would not be saving any money. Scotts is not saying you can't smoke at your own home, etc. You just can't smoke and work for them.
Click to expand...

Your post raises some questions.

Why do you make the claim that a 2-tier system for health care premiums is illegal? Is there actually a link to such a PUCO policy statement?

Why do you assume that companies would not pass along to the smokers on their staffs any incremental cost increase reflecting such a higher tier premium to the affected workers?

As for the last, that Scott's isn't saying that you cannot smoke in your home, etc ... they are just saying you cannot smoke and work for them - what??

That amounts to exactly the same thing. I know that is basically what other corporations have in the past stated as the boundary of their influence under similar circumstances, frankly it strikes me as, at best, disingenuous.

This policy, even though determined to be legal in 21 states, confers upon corporations priviliges over individual rights that we would never let the government assume.
 
Upvote 0
sandgk said:
methomps - I understand your response, but I think that the underlying issue is much more insidious. What it boils down to is one question.

Should companies have the right to dictate the behavior of their employees when they are not on company premises, or when not on company business?

That boils down in my mind to a constitutional argument - the right to privacy.
Click to expand...

I agree that it is a big constitutional issue. I think the courts will find in general that companies do have some say over what employees can do in their private lives (such as dating other employees, dating competitors, etc). The question will be how far (ban smoking)?
 
Upvote 0
methomps said:
I agree that it is a big constitutional issue. I think the courts will find in general that companies do have some say over what employees can do in their private lives (such as dating other employees, dating competitors, etc). The question will be how far (ban smoking)?
Click to expand...

I agree methomps - it is a question of degree, of extent.

My premise on this is indicated above. What we all must be very careful about is that we do not permit a situation to arise under which corporations are given rights and priviliges that effectively make them miniature feudal states, with the workers as serfs.

I will have to do some research on how far the establishment of this policy in law has been tested by judicial review at the State / Federal / Supreme court level.
 
Upvote 0
Is it ok for companies to dictate your life outside work? Yes, to an extent.

I understand that companies want employees to not be liabilities, but can you distinguish between alcohol intake and smoking? This is a difficult issue and unfortunately for smokers, drinking is seen as being more socially acceptable.

I feel that companies can eliminate smoke breaks and such and not allow anything smoke related to take place on their grounds. Away from work, I'm just not sure. The tiered health care plan would seem to be the best approach to me. I do feel that if smokers are not penalized for smoking that non-smokers should be rewarded from not smoking.
 
Upvote 0
The whole health issue is a non-starter. Insurance companies ask whether you are a smoker or a non-smoker and they charge you accordingly. The health risk is factored into the premiums. If Scotts is not currently on such a plan they ought to get one because my employer has it and so I know it's available. That whole excuse is a load of crap. They're doing this because they can. Because not enough non-smokers will stand up and call them on it. If you can discriminate against a smoker than you can do the same against a beer drinker and so forth. I know it's legal but it's bad business. There's no need for me to boycott them because I've already cancelled their lawn service. I encourage everyone who cares about freedom to do the same. I personally don't think any person should lose his job just because he has a habit that annoys some people.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top