Company To Workers: Light Up And You're Fired (Scotts Miracle- Gro)

Company To Workers: Light Up And You're Fired

POSTED: 12:55 pm PST December 10, 2005

MARYSVILLE, Ohio -- Quit smoking, or you're fired.

That's what Scotts Miracle-Gro is telling its employees. If they don't quit smoking by October, they'll lose their jobs.

The lawn and garden company is trying to keep health insurance costs down by promoting healthy lifestyles for its employees.

Its chairman and chief executive, James Hagedorn, said the company shouldn't have to shoulder health risks for employees who smoke. It pays for 75 percent of employees' health insurance.

The Ohio-based company has 6,000 employees. It said it can fire smokers legally in 21 states.

http://www.nbc11.com/health/5508409/detail.html

Please Du these facists. Thanks.

This is something we need to have many, many people do. This trend toward corporate tyranny goes hand-in-hand with the religious Right's drive to force religious coercion.

First off, I'm NOT a smoker. I wish nobody smoked. I've seen the damage in my own family.

If a company started off with a no-smoking policy, fine. Smokers, like the rest of us. could choose not to work at a company that didn't suit us. (Unless of course, they were the only game in town; but that's another discussion.)

But to arbitrarily decide that one health risk in particular (when there are SO many related to lifestyle) is going to be banned from the workplace at risk of losing your employment, years after people have chosen to work there, no; that's a kind of control I don't want anyone having over our lives. What I do on my own time outside of work, so long as it's legal, is and should be NONE of my employer's business. There's my work life, and there's My Life. The employer has a right to control the first, but not the second; they haven't paid for that privilege, and I'm not giving it to them. A smoker can't just quit on command; like any addiction, the smoker has to want to quit, and have a support system. Yes, there are "cold turkey" success stories, but they are few and far between, and you have to wonder if that person was truly addicted in the first place.

Miracle-Gro isn't "promoting" healthy lifestyles, they're mandating them. Employer Paternalism wasn't pretty in the last century, it's going to be even less so in this one. Unfortunately, this company, like many others, will get away with this kind of high-handed behavior. It's all part and parcel of our CorporateGovernment.

but my beef is PUBLIC smoking because others are involuntarily subjected to the smoke. in my case, i have an swift allergic reaction (can't breathe through my nose) and with enough exposure, a migraine.

so i have no problem with them controlling smoking in the workplace to maintain a smoke-free environment. even denying smoking breaks during work hours seems a bit harsh but ok, as they have a right to want you on the job within your scheduled hours. if you can't stick it out for 8 hours or so, get a nicotine patch or gum.

but to say you cannot smoke even when you're off-duty, and at home, seems a bit much.

especially because their concern about controlling health care costs can be addressed simply by requiring smokers to pay a larger portion of the premiums. i don't know if this is legal under current law, but they could lobby congress and/or the state legislatures to permit this.

this would completely address the company's concerns while preserving the rights of their smoking employees.

private companies control your health. If I've ever seen an argument for public healthcare, this is it!

I will not buy any Scott products until they change their behaviour.

I would like to ask the responsible people if they eat pizzas, burgers, hot dogs, ice cram and other sugar and fat enriched products. If they do, they should be fired too! It's an even greater health risk than smoking.

insurers have a different set of premiums for smokers vs. non-smokers.
they don't distinguish on the basis of diet.

despite their rhetoric, they're not doing it because they want you to be healthier and live longer. well, they might, but that's a side benefit. the real reason is to try to cut their insurance premiums.

the smokers the difference in the premium, if that's how it works.

I don't recall employers asking if I smoke on any of their forms. I know individual policies have varying rates, don't know that group ones do. Perhaps they are self insured?

Of course if they pay a pension and think smokers die sooner, would that savings make up for it?

I'm still not sure why they don't target obesity as well if they want to save money on health care.

Hey, the hospital maternity charges are pretty steep, aren't they? I could only find an example from 2001:

With marked regional variation, estimates of the cost of having a baby in the U.S. range from $6,000 to $8,000 for a normal vaginal delivery and $10,000 to $12,000 for a cesarean birth (on up to as much as $14,000 in certain parts of the country). If you are covered by insurance, it may take care of virtually all of the cost or only a fraction, depending on your plan and whether your doctor and hospital are preferred providers. Care with a nurse-midwife may cost less, and of course, a complicated pregnancy will cost more.

http://www.drspock.com/faq/0,1511,8285,00.html

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050327/NEWS08/503270364

Article published Sunday, March 27, 2005

Quest for lush lawns fuels debate over chemical safety

...
And to get a deep, lush mat of green beneath their feet, homeowners apply chemicals that knock out nuisance weeds and promote growth.
...
The public generally tends to blame farmers for the water and air pollution triggered by pesticide use, but the EPA is concerned about the runoff from 78 million households that buy and apply lawn chemicals each year...

But activist groups such as Beyond Pesticides argue that people have just as much of a right to live free of chemical exposure as property owners have a right to do as they please with their land....

It claims thousands of children and pets are unnecessarily exposed to dangerous chemicals - even in the air they breathe inside their homes - because of what gets tracked or blown indoors from neighboring properties....

Scott is pumping god-knows-what in chemical run-offs, selling this stuff to put on their lawns where their children play, and the workers themselves are exposed to this stuff.

But a little cigarette smoking drives up their insurance rates?

feh.

So it's illegal to do this in 29 states.

What are the odds that the states in which firing employees for actions on their own time will change their laws to favor the companies wanting to do this, or that the legislators in the 21 states that allow it now will change things to favor the employees' rights?

Apparently, there is nothing in the federal labor laws to prohibit the companies from this kind of firing, so it's a state-by-state issue.

The state legislators are the ones who can stop this, or enable it.

states. (Although there are 22 of those.)

http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm

Not Coincidentally, those same "Right to Work" states are pretty much the same map as the "Jesusland" map we saw after the last election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesusland_Map

This is a private company that is footing **75%** of the health care costs and I think they have a right to put limits on the health care costs they are paying for. Having lost both parents and most recently an aunt to lung cancer and emphysema (COPD), I think giving people practical incentives to quit is a good thing.
In my opinion, the employees have a choice - either quit their job in 10 months or quit smoking. I think it is very fair that they were given such a long period of time to make the decision.

Background on me: I smoked for 14 years (starting at 14)and grew up in a household with three adult smokers. Additionally, as I was watching my mother suffocate to death with emphysema, I had a very kind but truthful nurse talk to me about my smoking habit. She told me that tho everyone is afraid that they will die of lung cancer if they smoke, not everyone does. But EVERYONE who smokes gets some form of emphesema... everyone. And I can tell you from watching my mother deteriorate from it, it is painfully long way to die. It took her 7 years from the time she was put on 24 hour oxygen to her death. The lack of oxygen not affects your lungs, but your brain and other organs. They all start failing... slowly... and its exciting just to keep up with rebalancing your meds every 6 weeks just to keep you somewhat functional.

health and dental insurance from smokers? What if none of cessation programs work for them because they've been smoking since they were twelve and nicotine is "hard-wired" into their brains?

I don't like smoking either. Makes me ill. But I'm definitely against a corp running this part ofa person's life if it is a legal substance. It is a step away from interfering in family planning, health care decisions for their children, etc.

I can see why they might charge a separate premium for smokers, though.

But as we are not running their program, what would the costs be to monitor who's smoking and who isn't? Don't know. But what you suggest - on its face - would be more fair than what they are proposing.

for all their diseases that is so overwhelming and everyone's insurance has to absorb that cost. Typical lung cancer is minimum $350,000 and that is just the first time before the recurrence. Emphysema costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and it takes years to die. Coronary artery by-pass surgery: hundreds of thousands of dollars. This is at least partly preventable by not smoking, so if everyone pitched in and quit, we would all be better off. I think a company has a right not to be co-dependent when quitting is now quite doable.

How does coronary artery disease develop?

Coronary artery disease occurs when atherosclerotic plaque (hardening of the arteries) builds up in the wall of the arteries that supply the heart. This plaque is primarily made of cholesterol. Plaque accumulation can be accelerated by smoking, high blood pressure, elevated cholesterol, and diabetes. Patients are also at higher risk for plaque development if they are older (greater than 45 years for men and 55 years for women), or if they have a positive family history for early heart artery disease.

http://www.medicinenet.com/coronary_artery_bypass_graft/article.htm


How about requiring genetic screening to exclude possible future diabetes?

THE GENETIC BASIS OF TYPE I DIABETES

The genetic component appears to be a "susceptibility" factor, rather than a direct cause of type 1 diabetes. Geneticists describe this as a multifactorial condition (see Genetics Fact Sheet 10) where both inherited genetic predisposition to develop the condition and environmental triggers are involved.

http://www.genetics.com.au/factsheet/49.htm


Or screen out elevated cholesterol?

What is familial hypercholesterolaemia?

Raised cholesterol levels in the blood - hypercholesterolaemia - are generally caused by a poor diet and lifestyle in combination with the way an individual produces cholesterol in their liver.

However, in some individuals (1 in 500 of the population), the high cholesterol level in the blood is caused by a specific genetic defect. People with inherited or familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) are lacking in the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) receptors that remove cholesterol from the bloodstream.

http://www2.netdoctor.co.uk/diseases/facts/familialhypercholesterolaemia.htm

No employer should have the power to regulate their employees' outside activities without just compensation.

These employees should sue for back pay after a year- for a 24/7 workweek.

Believe me when I say, our objections have nothing to do with smoking andf everything to do with the precedent this sets. This is the second company that has done this. Who's to say the next time it won't be, "WalMart employees shall not shop at Target, Meijer, or any other competitor. Grocery items are not exempt from this policy, and any employee found violating this policy at any time shall be terminated.

WalMart employees shall also be subject to random curbside trash receipt seaches."

What's to stop that from happening? Nothing, if they can get away with this.

the employer is paying for their healthcare cost resulting from that activity (which could also occur on work breaks/lunches) and I do think that, as they are paying for the costs, as a private company they can certainly have a voice in whether they want the employees to continue that activity.

As I said before, the employees have a choice and enough time (10+ months) to make a change one way or the other. And as another already posted, perhaps the employees could opt to pay the insurance premiums themselves.

A larger answer to this problem is get universal healthcare passed.

Are you aware that sometimes the premium is double for smokers? It is time to pressure people to quit smoking and help save their lives. People can put down the cigarette, pick up the nicotine patch, and be done with the filthy, life-threatening habit once and for all. Free at last.

There is no such thing as a risk-free life.

Insurers are demanding a risk-free business and there ain't no such thing.

All these dependents are costing us too much in health insurance!

I am no fan of big tobacco but it is still legal, maybe unfortunately.

And beyond that, this is a civil rights issue.

... a company prohibiting an employee from engaging in any lEGAL activity of their choice ... or only the ones you find offensive?

I'm not trying to be nasty (I also am not a proponent of smoking)I'm just trying to apply a golden empirical (of sorts).

Because I am a poor skier and knowing this I continue to ski, should my employer be able to forbid me from this activity?

Gays have as a group have high health care costs. So they get fired too. It will save money on insurance costs. Is this alright with you too? Not with me.

QUOTE
Gannett Co. Inc.'s employees this month are receiving a notice that tells them to kick their nicotine habit or pay an extra $50 for their health insurance each month next year.

The McLean-based publisher of USA Today and 98 other daily newspapers nationwide is the latest company to institute a smoking disincentive to encourage healthy lifestyles and curb rising health care costs.
UNQUOTE

"Location of Gannett Daily Newspapers and TV Stations"

Tobacco, even the corporate shit that's been chemically modified to cross the blood-brain barrier in a manner similar to many "hard" drugs, is still legal. That means the use of tobacco as a recreational drug is still legal in America, even though some cities have imposed restrictions on where it can be used.

Let's just sit back and watch how the suits try to enforce this new decree...

you buy life insurance. And the premiums for smokers are double or they just plain won't cover a smoker at all. Everyone is going to die, they just think smokers will die sooner.

We certainly won't be responsible for that.

People who smoke, will no longer purchase Scotts Miracle-Gro products.

Those of you who smoke, need to inform other smokers to boycott all Scotts products. If Scotts Miracle-Gro has a problem with health care costs, they should inform their lobbyists to demand Government intervention on health care costs.

Scotts needs to feel the blo-back on this one. :hi:

After all, smokers would save them a lot of money on such a plan. Fucking hypocrites! :grr:

when they came for the casual refer users?

Were you outraged then?

screw around outside of the marriage bed, or otherwise engage in unsafe sex? they are at risk for STDs...

what about alcohol usage? too much and you develop liver problems, not to mention drinking/driving and getting hurt in an accident...

how about dumping the candy/soda/coffee machines -- unhealthy stuff

how about the company provide a food-cop to visit employee's homes to make sure they are eating a healthy diet?

home inspections for detection of lead paint, mold, asbestos, radon -- all could cause health problems

what about general environmental surveys of homes for toxic dumping by other big companies?

and how safe is their company to work at? OSHA anyone?

They are a threat to the mental health of all other employees with their constant proselytizing and necessary breaks for loud group prayer.