Necessary Roughness

The Boston Globe reports that a man was fired for testing positive for nicotine in his blood. The man has sued Scotts, his employer, in Massachusetts court for his job back.

Scotts announced last year, before it hired Rodrigues, that it would no longer hire tobacco users, a policy that company executives said was intended to improve employee wellness and drive down the company’s health care costs.

I don’t like anyone governing activities in the home, but there are other issues at play here.

It seems Scotts should have told this employee about this smoking policy before he signed on. It is a little strange that Scotts is not merely banning smoking in the workplace, but in accepting the contract with Scotts, Rodrigues in effect said he would not smoke. If this policy was not communicated, then Scotts is at fault. If the nicotine test policy was a surprise, then Scotts is at fault there too.

Scotts should reserve the right to hire and fire anyone it pleases, especially when the criteria is behavior. A potential employee that Scotts refuses to hire can take his or her talent to another company or start their own. It wouldn’t be that difficult to undercut a business that just put down $5 million for a wellness center. The money that Scotts saves from its insurance could be less than it gains from the performance of employees who only smoke away from work.

Incidentally, some people here at Halliburton have made health part of their pay-for-performance package. I know myself better than that and wouldn’t dare make my weight a factor in my incentives. A frequent traveler has a tough time getting into a routine.