I received more responses from the CEO. For your reading pleasure:
ME:
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 you aren't you discriminating against someone based solely on their geographical location?<o:p></o:p>
I am going to fax everyone I know in government to try and get the <st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Ohio</st1:place></st1:state> 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.
HIM:
A few more points. <o:p></o:p>
Your argument is well reasoned (but wrong). You’re right that smoking and obesity are the 2 major current health issues in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">America</st1:country-region></st1:place> and at Scotts Miracle-Gro. We are also dealing with weight issues and we’re putting our money where our mouth is. You are probably aware that we just built, in Marysville, a $5 million health care facility that includes a fitness center, a medical center and a pharmacy. It cost’s almost another $5 million per year to run it. Associates use the fitness center for free if they show up more than 100 times per year and the medical center is completely free as long as you use generic drugs. All associates save $40 per month if they submit to a confidential health assessment and another $40 if they use “prescribed” help to become more fit. Under the law, I can’t make people lose weight. All I can do is make it more expensive not to participate. Obesity and smoking are causing more deaths, per year, than all wars we’ve ever fought - combined. We are being as aggressive as we can be on obesity – the laws just protect the obese better than smokers. <o:p></o:p>
Sounds like you smoke. So did I – 2 packs a day until my mother died of lung, throat and brain cancer. My daughter smokes. I hope you understand this isn’t just a $ issue. I’m trying to be a responsible boss and deal with a couple of issues the politicians and medical community have failed at. Why work till you’re 65 – 70 and then die as soon as you retire? If this was truly a “at home” (none of your business) issue I would totally agree with you. But this a terrible and costly issue for all smokers (and their families) health and all of those who directly or indirectly pay for the resultant costs. I can’t see how you can argue with that.<o:p></o:p>
Thanks for having the cajones to write your notes.<o:p></o:p>
FYI – Please reconsider buying the competitors stuff – your lawn will know the difference.<o:p></o:p>
ME:
I couldn't let your email slide without a final response.
I believe your argument is well intentioned (but wrong). At first you stated the policy was due to health care costs. I doubt you will ever save any money, even "if" the policy is actually implemented. I hope the laws can be changed in Ohio before your deadline next year. You also come across as being the type that would have a weight chart policy in effect, if it were legal and you could get away with it. I think the bottom line is that it's not "your" job to try and cut down on the number of deaths related to obesity and smoking. I also notice you don't mention alcohol so I assume this deadly drug is okay with you. Although it appears you are well intentioned, you must remind yourself that you are not your employee's Daddy. The employees are "big boys" and can decide what to do when they are not on the job.
Why is it that Scotts has to be the first company in Ohio (that I know of) to implement this Draconian measure? If you were looking for publicity then you found it, but I doubt you counted on the negative publicity that this policy has received. Once again I must remind you that over 30% of the population smokes. You will be missing out on a lot of good people. The Miami Police Department tried the same thing and then quietly changed the policy back to the way it was. It seems they couldn't get enough good "non-smokers" to work for them.
Why would someone want to work for Scotts when they can go anywhere else in Marysville or Dublin and not have to deal with your policies? What about the loyal employee who has been with you for 20+ years and is not able to quit or doesn't want to (for obvious reasons)? Will you say goodbye and good luck solely because they choose to smoke? How will this policy be enforced? I assume you will take random blood tests? What about the spouses of employees who smoke? Maybe you can institute a policy to fire the spouses of people who smoke as well?
Regarding your mother's death, if she had not died of cancer then it would have been something else. I had three grandparents and each of the three started smoking in their early teens and ended up dying in their mid 80's and their deaths had nothing to do with smoking. Also, I don't know if you have been in a nursing home lately but I would rather die then spend ANY time in those places. When it's your time to go then it's your time.
Thank YOU for having the cajones to even respond to my original email when you could have easily deleted it. Luckily I don't work for Scotts so these ideas don't affect me personally, but I do feel sorry for those who may have to live with it for the time being. I figure the first time someone actually loses their job over this nonsense, then the ACLU or some hungry attorney will find a loophole that you are overlooking and it will end up costing your company millions of dollars. You would be much better off just making day to day business decisions and letting the employees do what they want when they are not working.
<o:p></o:p>
