Rights and reason up in smoke, part 2
In the last Daily Dose, I reported to you about the new “zero-tolerance” stance of the smoke-Nazi bureaucrats now in charge of Omaha, Nebraska – and how they seemingly consider smoking complaints to be as important as accident, rape, robbery, and murder calls
After all, they recently encouraged citizens to CALL 911 if they see someone smoking where they shouldn’t be (which is now almost everywhere in that town)!
However, as I alluded to in part 1 of this series, governments aren’t the only ones giving a butt-reaming to those who just want to catch a quick smoke on their coffee-breaks – or even in their HOMES. According to a recent Associated Press article, a Boston man has been fired from his job for suspicion of smoking
But not even while at work!
Apparently, the Scotts Company (the lawn-care folks with the big green trucks) felt that a positive blood test for nicotine was grounds enough for termination of employee Scott Rodrigues – even though there is no proof he smoked while on the job. In fact, the man insists that he didn’t, and no customers or co-workers have claimed otherwise.
Not that it would have offended anyone if he had, since he WORKED OUTDOORS.
The company is claiming that Rodrigues had fair warning – since Scotts’ company-wide tobacco-free policy is outlined on the firm’s website, and on the standard “terms of employment” paperwork all employee are required to review and sign
Predictably, Rodrigues is suing Scotts Company for wrongful termination. And rightly so, if you ask me. Now, you know I’m not a huge fan of lawsuits – but sometimes (like when you’re being unfairly discriminated against) they’re the only way to achieve justice. In my opinion, this is one of those cases that’s well worth the court’s time
After all, there’s far more at stake here than just one man’s menial labor job. This case could become a landmark in the debate about private companies’ rights to discriminate in hiring – and employees’ rights to privacy and individuality.
This case and others like it represent a very tricky wicket – because they force the courts to rank fundamental American freedoms into some sort of hierarchy. This is never a good thing to have to do. Inevitably in these sorts of situations, one type of freedom ends up being weakened, while another becomes too broad in scope
In this case, it’s a battle between the freedom of privately owned companies to discriminate in their employment practices and the freedom of individuals NOT to be discriminated against for their personal choices. These are both valid freedoms in my view.
Think about it: Private businesses should not be forced to hire employees that do not further their business models. Take “Hooters,” for instance. If they weren’t allowed to discriminate by hiring only comely young servers, they wouldn’t have a business to hire anyone for. If the Dallas Cowboys weren’t allowed to discriminate in hiring only the best players and not just every schlep off the street that wanders into their locker room, they wouldn’t have much of a football team, would they?
The basic argument is this: How invasive to our lives and personal identities should private companies be allowed in their evaluation of what makes the “best” employees? Should they be allowed to make their determinations based on race, for example? Not in this country (unless you work for the government – they have quotas and affirmative action programs)
How about based on sexual preference? Should Hooters be able bar a woman who meets their hiring standards for appearance and competence simply because she’s a lesbian? Should an NFL team be able to rule out a prime running back simply because he’s gay? No way – they’d be in court so fast your head would spin.
But should companies be able to hire or fire based solely on whether an employee smokes cigarette – still perfectly legal in most places (except Omaha) – during their off-hours? Apparently so.
What’s really disturbing here is that in this Scotts-v-Rodrigues case (and probably in most other smoking-related cases), the central issue isn’t even about how smoking could affect an employee’s job performance, or even a company’s image
It’s about money, as usual.
