Post Reply

Forum Index   >   Smokers Rights   >   Don't buy Scotts products   >   Post a New Reply

Share/Bookmark this Topic: Digg it Stumble it Submit to Del.icio.us Reddit it Facebook it Blink it Slashdot it Linkagogo it 
Message Author
by YeDave on Thu Jan 12, 2006 2:18 pm
Quote:
Scotts made some good products, but you can find compatible products elseware

They do make some good products, but they're the most expensive. That could be another reason to find an alternative. Wink [/quote]
YeDave Toker
Toker Joined: Dec 21, 2004 Posts: 80 Location: MA
Back to top
 
by patdaly on Thu Jan 12, 2006 11:04 pm
Yo, JRS buddy, I will pose a question again.

As I understand it, you say a business owner has a right to say what his employees do off the job, ostensibly in the name of lower health care costs, correct?


If so, can he refuse to hire an African American due to higher health care costs associated with their genetics? Can he refuse to hire a homosexual because of the great expense of treating HIV? Could he demand only MALE employees due to the reduction in cost of employment ( no maternity leave )?

C'mon, lets have a straight answer for once.
patdaly Enthusiastic Smoker
Enthusiastic Smoker Joined: Jan 02, 2005 Posts: 207 Location: Streator Illinois
Back to top
 
by JRS9000 on Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:14 pm
First, Pat, I want to reiterate:

I don't think the burden of providing healthcare for American citizens should be shouldered by businesses. They have enough on their plate as it is.

Yes, I believe in national healthcare like in every other industrialized country in the world. And guess what, if you're rich enough to get private care, more power to you--you have that option. At least those who aren't as rich won't be refused healthcare, or won't be financially ruined by the costs associated with it. The number #1 reason why Americans declare bankruptcy in the US is because of healthcare costs. It's not because of credit card debt. If you don't believe me, I'll provide a link to several articles.

Now, I'm sure you believe that government shouldn't poke its nose into healthcare (and frankly, I'm beginning to believe that smokers think that we shouldn't have any type of government at all), but think of it this way:

1. If you have 2,700 different healthcare companies each with 17 to 63 different plans, that becomes confusing and inefficient.
2. If one entity covers healthcare, such as a government entity, that relieves the business owner of the responsibility, and he can devote more time to running his business. Why should businesses subsidize healthcare anyway?

Thus, as with the case of Weyco, Mr. Weyers probably (and I say "probably" because I don't know him) wouldn't care what his employees did with regards to behaviors that are deemed harmful.

Think about it. Would you care if your employees liked to box if you weren't responsible for providing healthcare for concussions?

HOWEVER, if Mr. Weyers chose not to hire smokers for whatever reason (and smokers are NOT a protected class of people in many states in this country, Michigan being one of them), I would respect his decision to run his business any way he pleases.

If a private bar owner requires his bartenders to be second-hand smokers in order to keep their jobs, why can't Mr. Weyers require his employees to be nonsmokers in order to keep their jobs at Weyco?

You must also have to consider that not all blacks are predisposed to hypertension, and not all homosexuals have HIV. In fact, many non-blacks have hypertension, and many heterosexuals have HIV.

Now, when it comes to genetics, well, that's a different story. Smokers don't have a gene that makes them want to smoke. In the same sense, you don't choose to have hypertension. (Of course, certain actions can cause hypertension, but it's also genetic, as in my case.) There isn't a gene that makes you want to base jump off a cliff, either.

In other words, employees don't "do" hypertension. They do smoke, however.

HIV also follows in the same vein, because nowadays you can contract HIV by your actions and simply by being born to someone who has HIV. You can also be assaulted by someone with a needle containing HIV. You can't be given hypertension.

So, what has to be examined is whether you're talking about a protected class of people (blacks) or an unprotected class of people (smokers in many states, homosexuals I believe in all states).

If the minority is protected (say, the obese), then no, employers should have no say in the behaviors of their employees. (Obesity, like hypertension, can be caused by both actions and/or genetics.)

If the minority is not protected, then yes, employers should be able to have a say in the behaviors of their employees, because said employers should be able to run their businesses any way they please.
JRS9000 Enthusiastic Smoker
Enthusiastic Smoker Joined: Oct 04, 2005 Posts: 648
Back to top
 
by Zippy on Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:38 pm
The problem with the entire scenerio that you speak of is that you argue that employee participation in the Companies Health Care program is mandated by the company.

No such mandate exists in private companies. The Health Care program is a benifit, granted to employees IF THEY WISH TO PARTICIPATE in at as an incentive to go to work for the company.

These employees were not fired for abusing the policy, or even participating in the policy, BUT FOR POTENTIALLY accessing the policy.

In that aspect, Pat is exactly correct.

The above has to do with firing existing employees. Hiring is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SUBJECT.
Zippy Enthusiastic Smoker
Enthusiastic Smoker Joined: Apr 20, 2005 Posts: 681
Back to top
 
by Roland on Sat Jan 14, 2006 8:26 pm
"The above has to do with firing existing employees. Hiring is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SUBJECT."

Zippy, you are correct, but 'Do you use tobacco products?' is the only "medically" related question on most applications.

Can you imagine the uproar if a company decided that they were not going to hire diabetics and were going to fire all the diabetics that worked for them?
Roland Enthusiastic Smoker
Enthusiastic Smoker Joined: Mar 21, 2005 Posts: 225
Back to top
 
by Roland on Sat Jan 14, 2006 8:31 pm
Quote:
Mr. Hagedorn, 50 years old, once smoked two packs of cigarettes a day but quit 20 years ago after his mother died of lung cancer. He said he understands how difficult it is to quit smoking but also how important it is. "Are we going to stand by and watch our people get sick? The answer is no," he said. "Success here is not firing anybody."


There's no worse smoke-NAZI, than a 'reformed' smoker.
Roland Enthusiastic Smoker
Enthusiastic Smoker Joined: Mar 21, 2005 Posts: 225
Back to top
 
by patdaly on Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:13 am
JRS9000 wrote:
First, Pat, I want to reiterate:

I don't think the burden of providing healthcare for American citizens should be shouldered by businesses. They have enough on their plate as it is.


Well, at least one thing we can agree on. Give the employee a set dollar amount to purchase health care, and stay the hell out of my life.

Quote:

You must also have to consider that not all blacks are predisposed to hypertension, and not all homosexuals have HIV. In fact, many non-blacks have hypertension, and many heterosexuals have HIV.

Now, when it comes to genetics, well, that's a different story. Smokers don't have a gene that makes them want to smoke. In the same sense, you don't choose to have hypertension. (Of course, certain actions can cause hypertension, but it's also genetic, as in my case.) There isn't a gene that makes you want to base jump off a cliff, either.

In other words, employees don't "do" hypertension. They do smoke, however.


Ah, but YOU must consider not all smokers are predisposed to cancer. You CAN comprehend that fact, cant you? And just HOW can you be assured thet there isnt a genetic link to smoking? We certainly have one linked to drinking, or is it easier to just make a blanket statement?


Quote:

So, what has to be examined is whether you're talking about a protected class of people (blacks) or an unprotected class of people (smokers in many states, homosexuals I believe in all states).

If the minority is protected (say, the obese), then no, employers should have no say in the behaviors of their employees. (Obesity, like hypertension, can be caused by both actions and/or genetics.)

If the minority is not protected, then yes, employers should be able to have a say in the behaviors of their employees, because said employers should be able to run their businesses any way they please.


HYPOCRIT!

To hide behind discriminatory current law, saying it is not alright to discriminate against a black because it is, well, the law, and then say it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against a smoker has to be the screwiest logic I have ever run across, and dealing with loberal democrats, I have seen some doozies.
patdaly Enthusiastic Smoker
Enthusiastic Smoker Joined: Jan 02, 2005 Posts: 207 Location: Streator Illinois
Back to top
 
by JRS9000 on Tue Jan 17, 2006 5:03 pm
Zippy writes:

The problem with the entire scenerio that you speak of is that you argue that employee participation in the Companies Health Care program is mandated by the company.

I never said that. Obviously employee health plans are optional.

It would seem logical for the Weyco employees who smoke to just drop their health insurance. That would have solved the problem. [/i]
JRS9000 Enthusiastic Smoker
Enthusiastic Smoker Joined: Oct 04, 2005 Posts: 648
Back to top
 
by Zippy on Tue Jan 17, 2006 5:18 pm
JRS9000 wrote:
Zippy writes:

The problem with the entire scenerio that you speak of is that you argue that employee participation in the Companies Health Care program is mandated by the company.

I never said that. Obviously employee health plans are optional.

It would seem logical for the Weyco employees who smoke to just drop their health insurance. That would have solved the problem. [/i]


I actually agree with your statement, but, in the case of Weyco, I don't think that solved the problem. I beleive they would be fired anyway.

To fire someone for accessing a policy that you DID NOT REQUIRE, that YOU GAVE THEM as part of an incentive to get them to work for you, is beyond absurd, it is loony.
Zippy Enthusiastic Smoker
Enthusiastic Smoker Joined: Apr 20, 2005 Posts: 681
Back to top
 
by ToniAynia on Sat Jan 28, 2006 9:30 am
Tom wrote:
Scotts made some good products, but you can find compatible products elseware. I used scotts grubbex, their steps 1-4 lawn care ROUND-UP, and their miracle grow last year. Their stuff works well. I've been using them 10 years at my parents 2 acre property, and now I use them at my property. The garden centers recommended other stuff, but I didn't want to change. Now I will find a good alternative, a better 4 step lawn care program, and a better anti-grub solution. I was gonna research this stuff last year, becasue my friends had better results with other products, and I got jellous. Now I have a reason to search out these better products myself. I will share the results on here. I encourage anyone else to.


I have written to the Scotts/MiracleGro company letting them know that I along with all my friends are boycotting them due to their invasive, discriminatory practices.

They did write me back letting me know that they are such a kind company, that they offer all these free programs to help their employees.

To which, I responded, in short, that a giver of a gift should check their motivations at the door, otherwise a giver might allow themselves to come to believe that a gift is actually a control mechanism over the recipient.

Additionally, a company concerned with rising health-care costs might do well to eliminate such "free" programs as certainly there is no such thing as anything free. In this case, these "free" programs can cost the company in customers.

Companies cannot conduct themselves in such invasive, control-freak ways if they are out of business, and they know it.

I wrote next to the HenryFields company to find out if they used any of the Scotts/MiracleGro products and if they respected their employees' freedom of personal choice.

They let me know that they do not use Scotts/MiracleGro products and shared with me a copy of a portion of their HR policies. Their policies do not appear to be specifically discriminatory like Scotts/MiracleGro, so I'm going forward with faith here and am going to purchase from HenryFields instead.

Take care out there and be well...
ToniAynia...
ToniAynia Newbie
Newbie Joined: Oct 24, 2005 Posts: 2
Back to top
 


All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next