• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Boycott Scotts Due to Smoking Policy

Jump to latest Follow Reply
plum diamonds buckeye planet
Sort by date Sort by votes
Sorry, I would've replied sooner to this thread but i just took my first of about 20 smoking breaks that I take in a given day because I'm so controlled by the cigarrette that I can't even go 5 minutes without one. My employer thinks its great that I waste about an hour a day going outside to suck down a bunch of cancer. He likes the fact that while I'm outside smoking I am not getting anything done that I'm getting paid to do......plus there is the upside of him having to replace me when I die from lung cancer. It's a win win.
 
Upvote 0
How is this different from the Browns and KWII signing a contract forbidding motorcycle use? They're both a company forbidding an activity that potentially costs them money down the road. If anything, that's worse since the NFL is pretty much a monopoly. There's plenty of other fertilizer companies at which the displaced Scott's employees can work.

The above post does not reflect the actual opinion of the author. Just a question.
 
Upvote 0
MolGenBuckeye said:
How is this different from the Browns and KWII signing a contract forbidding motorcycle use? They're both a company forbidding an activity that potentially costs them money down the road. If anything, that's worse since the NFL is pretty much a monopoly. There's plenty of other fertilizer companies at which the displaced Scott's employees can work.

The above post does not reflect the actual opinion of the author. Just a question.
Click to expand...

It's different because that policy applies only to KWII and not to other players. It's because he's already cost them a lot of money because they're paying him to sit. The Scotts policy is for all employees and it assumes that smokers will cost them extra money in the future (versus non-smokers), which is far from certain.
 
Upvote 0
It's different because that policy applies only to KWII and not to other players. It's because he's already cost them a lot of money because they're paying him to sit. The Scotts policy is for all employees and it assumes that smokers will cost them extra money in the future (versus non-smokers), which is far from certain.
Click to expand...

It's certain that on average, a smoker will cost as much or more than a non-smoker. How much, I don't know.

As for the KWII issue, it's not so much his specific contract, it's the fact that a team can put that kind of clause into contracts. My guess would be that all players have some sort of similar clause. Anyone have more insight into that assumption?
 
Upvote 0
MolGenBuckeye said:
As for the KWII issue, it's not so much his specific contract, it's the fact that a team can put that kind of clause into contracts. My guess would be that all players have some sort of similar clause. Anyone have more insight into that assumption?
Click to expand...

IIRC the Browns started adding that clause with KW's class. I have heard before where certain athletes have restrictions, but it sounds like the Browns started adding it more across the board.
 
Upvote 0
MolGenBuckeye said:
It's certain that on average, a smoker will cost as much or more than a non-smoker. How much, I don't know.

As for the KWII issue, it's not so much his specific contract, it's the fact that a team can put that kind of clause into contracts. My guess would be that all players have some sort of similar clause. Anyone have more insight into that assumption?
Click to expand...

Well... the first assumption I think is that he (and all players- this is part of the standard contract) is actually prohibited from dangerous activities... are they? Or are they subject to teams voiding their contracts in the event that a dangerous activity prohibits them from being unable to perfom their job.
 
Upvote 0
MolGenBuckeye said:
It's certain that on average, a smoker will cost as much or more than a non-smoker. How much, I don't know.
Click to expand...

We're talking health insurance here. Cigarette smoking causes death for sure, but does it make a person more susceptible to sinus infections or injured ankles?

Frankly, I think I should probably be charged a higher premium by my insurer based on the fact that I have 5 children. I'm a high risk for putting my wife in the hospital to deliver a baby, based on my history. Since those hospital stays and the necessary treatments are expensive, I should be charged more than some other guy who is either unmarried or has had himself "fixed". Maybe Scotts should insist that their employees all be sterilized, and that way they can prevent the future expense of baby deliveries.
 
Upvote 0
Thump said:
I don't know, is he/she?

Maybe you should start smoking to take the edge off. :roll1:

Just trying to play devils advocate and show you the hypocrisy of your post.
Click to expand...
too bad you failed. there is no hypocrisy in my post. the hypocrisy is in the policy. people can take as many smoke breaks as they want, but if i was caught posting on here all day i would be in trouble.

and do me a favor, stop assuming you know what the tone of my posts are. you don't, since you apparently think i've been bitchy. i know you'll just read this and think i'm being bitchy again, despite me telling you that i'm not.
 
Upvote 0
To the guy a long ways back in this thread who said something to the effect of "It's not the Governaments job to protect us from ourselves..." I say..... Seatbelt laws, and Helmet laws.

and agreeing with the gentleman above, even if you say that the employee cannot smoke or use tobbacco, what about his wife, kids, parents.

I have heard horror stories about the chemical dust up there, maybe they should spend more time correcting that instead of trying to be "big brother".
 
Upvote 0
I have heard horror stories about the chemical dust up there, maybe they should spend more time correcting that instead of trying to be "big brother
Click to expand...

I was thinking about that too, but I didn't want to make assuptions about their safety standards... which of course is the type of thing that doesn't get in the stats... lung cancer? Was he a smoker?.. yes but he was also a coal miner... but he was a smoker? Yes.
 
Upvote 0
BuckeyeNation27 said:
people can take as many smoke breaks as they want, but if i was caught posting on here all day i would be in trouble.
Click to expand...

Since when do employers allow employees to take as many smoke breaks as possible? That's news to me.

And secondly Mili-lite, I'm not the only one who thinks you've been testy around here as of late.

For what it's worth, I agree with you, I hate cigarettes and hope the state of Rhode Island makes it a statewide ban.

You just need to realize that it's not just a black and white issue, it's very complex, especially when dealing with legal rights of American citizens.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top