• 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.

man fired for smoking on his time

Jump to latest Follow Reply
plum diamonds buckeye planet
Sort by date Sort by votes
Dryden;760187; said:
This country was founded on tobacco. Admit it, you'd hate to see what you'd pay in taxes if smokers didn't foot the bill for you.

What's the government do when it needs money? It taxes the 'sinners.'
Click to expand...

Carton of Smokes in Columbus: $60.00

Carton of Smokes in Mineral Wells, WV: $30.52
 
Upvote 0
scooter1369;760194; said:
Carton of Smokes in Columbus: $60.00

Carton of Smokes in Mineral Wells, WV: $30.52
Click to expand...
For what I paid in taxes to build the Arena District in C-Bus, I should be allowed to stand at center ice before a Blue Jackets game, chain smoke Camels, piss Bud Light, and sing God Bless America.
 
Upvote 0
OSUsushichic;760190; said:
There is a group here that takes 2-hour lunch breaks and spends the rest of the day smoking every 15 mins.
Click to expand...

What stops you from doing the same (minus the smoking)? How do you know they are not accessible or getting their work done? Isn't that management's job? Your company must have shitty management if these people are kept on staff. Or perhaps they are getting their work done and you just don't like the fact that they smoke. Or, maybe, they are twice as efficient? What ever happened to the concept of minding one's own business?
 
Upvote 0
redskinbucksfan;760200; said:
What stops you from doing the same (minus the smoking)? How do you know they are not accessible or getting their work done? Isn't that management's job? Your company must have shitty management if these people are kept on staff. Or perhaps they are getting their work done and you just don't like the fact that they smoke. Or, maybe, they are twice as efficient? What ever happened to the concept of minding one's own business?
Click to expand...

Geesh, sounds like you need a smoke. :biggrin:

Actually, it is my business when I rely on these people to get their work done. If they don't then it makes me land the rest of the company) look bad. Their manager does suck, and that department is having some major problems, but that's another story. I'm not attributing it solely to their smoking, it's the slacking, and being out of the office so much can't help.
 
Upvote 0
buckeyefool;759957; said:
The policy was in place when he got hired. He knew that it was against the policy and he decided to go against it. He should have never taken the job.
Click to expand...


Absolutely correct. I feel no sympathy for this dumbass. If a company is providing health care benefits (whether it's outside insurance or a self funded plan), they have a direct financial interest in the health of their employees. Smoking is an obvious unhealthy habit that results in health issues and obviously expenses. It's only natural that a company would do what they could to curtail those habits. If someone is a smoker, they have a choice to work for someone or not. It's no different than a nonsmoker who has a choice (or at least used to have a choice in Ohio...stupid law) to work a smoke filled environment or not.

This is a trend that isn't going away. Some companies are offering lower health care premiums for folks who don't somke. Some subsidize gym memberships and offer credits on premiums for gym memberships. Some companies have updated their cafeteria food to much healthier options. In every case it's an effort to reduce premiums and expense for the employer. Until someone else is paying the health care bills, companies will continue the trend.
 
Upvote 0
Thump;760193; said:
BTW, what kind of job is it where they get a 2 hour lunch?
Click to expand...
A few select answers come to mind ..
A - Political Lobbyist

B - Some Journalists

C - Some Trial Lawyers of my acquaintance

D - Some Salespeople of my acquaintance

E - A Dream Job?

Also noticed this from Page 2 of the linked article:
Rodrigues said he was treated particularly unfairly because he was fired before the policy had officially taken effect and he was never offered help to quit smoking.
Click to expand...
The offer of smoking cessation assistance is another of those pillars of corporate behavior on which Scott's spokesman King leans.
 
Upvote 0
martinss01;760085; said:
im not ok with paying the same as the guy beside me who picks up meds every month for high blood pressure. im not ok with paying the same as the people who get flu shots every year. explain to me why i should have to pay the same for insurance than someone who is being treated for something? im not sick. why should i have to help foot the bill for THEIR illness?

keep in mind i agree with you on this point. your issue is legit. however, the way in which you intend to solve it is a whole lot of shortsighted. higher healthcare costs is a legit arguement. however, that arguement DOES NOT give you the authority to tell me how to lead my life. keep in mind your relying on the same medical community for your information with which to discrimante against people that changes its mind every 5 min on what is bad for you and what isn't.
Click to expand...

Who ever said I think you should pay the same as the guy w high blood pressure? You're assuming quite a bit here, and incorrect assumptions at that.

Second, this company is not telling this guy how to lead his life. They are simply telling him he cannot smoke as long as he is employed there. Once again, on the other side of the coin, who the hell is he to dictate to them how much risk they should be taking with their medical costs? I recall seeing a similar argument a few years ago by some guy who was suing an insurance company because they wouldnt cover more than X Viagra pills per month. His claim - "Who are they to tell me how many times I can have sex per month?" They werent, they were simply telling him how many times they would pay for his Viagra. He still has the choice to buy it himself if he wants it.

Perhaps the thing that irks me the most when I see discussions like this is the almost automatic assumption that the big bad evil company is doing something wrong to the poor exploited worker. The company compensates the employee for his work. The way I see it, the company doesnt owe the worker shit other than that. If you dont like it, go get another job - no one is telling you to stay there. The people who manage the company have a responsibility to the other workers in the firm and the shareholders to keep it as efficient as possible. If that includes a measure to keep healthcare costs down, so be it. I can just hear it now - "But NYB, isnt that cold?" No - its not - because I always see the other side of the coin as well. For every person who is not putting in their fair share in any organization, whether it be a company or a country, that means that someone else is not getting back the fair share that they put in. I still have never heard anyone explain to me why the productive should be forced to subsidize the unproductive. If someone wants to do that voluntarily, that is one thing, but IMO to force those who are productive to
support those who are not to me is completely immoral.
 
Upvote 0
"What we're trying ultimately to create is a smoke-free workforce, as well as workplace, in states where state laws allow us to do that," King said.
Click to expand...
If this doesn't wreak of "Big Brother", nothing does. What's next, saying you can't fuck because you could catch a venereal disease or that a pregnancy may occur which would cost the company sick time and medical expenses?

buckeyefool;759957; said:
The policy was in place when he got hired. He knew that it was against the policy and he decided to go against it. He should have never taken the job.
Click to expand...
Read the whole article, dipshit...

"Rodrigues said he was treated particularly unfairly because he was fired before the policy had officially taken effect and he was never offered help to quit smoking."
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye;760797; said:
Read the whole article, dipshit...

"Rodrigues said he was treated particularly unfairly because he was fired before the policy had officially taken effect and he was never offered help to quit smoking."
Click to expand...

And here is another part of the article I will point out to you, only minus the whole name calling part

Rodrigues, 30, a pack-a-day smoker when he was hired by Scotts's Sagamore Beach location earlier this year, was fired in September after a drug test showed high nicotine levels in his urine. He had previously received a written warning after a supervisor saw a pack of cigarettes on the dashboard of his car. At the time of the test, Rodrigues -- who was aware of the policy when he was hired -- was trying to kick the habit and had cut back to about a half-dozen cigarettes daily. He believes the Nicorette anti smoking gum he had been chewing may have contributed to his elevated nicotine levels.
 
Upvote 0
buckeyefool;760809; said:
And here is another part of the article I will point out to you, only minus the whole name calling part

Rodrigues, 30, a pack-a-day smoker when he was hired by Scotts's Sagamore Beach location earlier this year, was fired in September after a drug test showed high nicotine levels in his urine. He had previously received a written warning after a supervisor saw a pack of cigarettes on the dashboard of his car. At the time of the test, Rodrigues -- who was aware of the policy when he was hired -- was trying to kick the habit and had cut back to about a half-dozen cigarettes daily. He believes the Nicorette anti smoking gum he had been chewing may have contributed to his elevated nicotine levels.
Click to expand...

Maybe I needed to also highlight the latter part of the very same sentence I quoted...here let me show you what it said:

"he was never offered help to quit smoking".

This, despite this statement by Mr King, quote: "Our goal is not to terminate anybody; our goal is to provide tools to people to stop smoking". Hmmm, I guess their tool to stop people from smoking isn't offering them a tobacco cessation class but rather firing their asses so they can't buy cigarettes. Maybe they can use the same logic on those employees who they deem overweight, so the employees can't eat as much with no income. :roll1:
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top