The notion that a company should be able to fire you because smoke at home is completely absurd. Smoking is not illegal, and accordingly, a company has no right whatsoever taking this course of action. So what if you work at a cancer center. What you do at home is still your business.
This is just another example of corporations having too much ability to abuse and control their workers. Ugh.
The notion that a company should be able to fire you because smoke at home is completely absurd. Smoking is not illegal, and accordingly, a company has no right whatsoever taking this course of action. So what if you work at a cancer center. What you do at home is still your business.
This is just another example of corporations having too much ability to abuse and control their workers. Ugh.
It's not absurd. They told her she couldn't come to work anymore smelling like cigarette smoke. She did not comply. She was fired for not doing as she was told by her employer.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
Really? So, where do you draw the line? If a company I work for tells me that I can't eat food with sugar while I'm at home, am I expected to comply? What if it's McDonalds? Eating McDonalds makes one look like a fat slob that can't afford a real hamburger and is willing to eat beef-flavored grease. That makes a company look bad. Should they be able to fire me?
You guys are effectively arguing that a company can fire anyone for any reason that they ever feel like, as long as it doesn't directly violate EOE(I assume that this is implied in your absurd arguments).
Here are the reason that a company should be able to fire someone: Because that person did not do their job to a required standard, or because that person participated in illegal activities outside of work. The End. Corporate America does not have the right to just trample all over everyone, but as long as people just act like automatons in instances like this, you are effectively giving them that right.
Also, I don't recall either of you arguing that the lifeguard that got fired deserved it. But there is no difference in what actually happened in these circumstances. In both cases, the employee violated a company request and got fired over it. Just because 'omg smoking' is the case here doesn't make it justified. Last I checked, smoking is not illegal. And the moment that people start letting companies dictate which legal activities that they can participate in while away from work is the beginning of the end for the private rights of the US citizen. Corporate America has shown that it cares about profits, and nothing but profits. They will expect you to make any sacrifice and will take any shortcut if it means more immediate profits.
Really? So, where do you draw the line? If a company I work for tells me that I can't eat food with sugar while I'm at home, am I expected to comply? What if it's McDonalds? Eating McDonalds makes one look like a fat slob that can't afford a real hamburger and is willing to eat beef-flavored grease. That makes a company look bad. Should they be able to fire me?
You guys are effectively arguing that a company can fire anyone for any reason that they ever feel like, as long as it doesn't directly violate EOE(I assume that this is implied in your absurd arguments).
Here are the reason that a company should be able to fire someone: Because that person did not do their job to a required standard, or because that person participated in illegal activities outside of work. The End. Corporate America does not have the right to just trample all over everyone, but as long as people just act like automatons in instances like this, you are effectively giving them that right.
Also, I don't recall either of you arguing that the lifeguard that got fired deserved it. But there is no difference in what actually happened in these circumstances. In both cases, the employee violated a company request and got fired over it. Just because 'omg smoking' is the case here doesn't make it justified. Last I checked, smoking is not illegal. And the moment that people start letting companies dictate which legal activities that they can participate in while away from work is the beginning of the end for the private rights of the US citizen. Corporate America has shown that it cares about profits, and nothing but profits. They will expect you to make any sacrifice and will take any shortcut if it means more immediate profits.
they didn't say she couldn't smoke at home, they requested that she not smell like smoke at work. if you are an employee who goes to business meetings all the time, you would be expected to keep your dental hygiene at a premium. if you start coming in to work with parsley in between your brown teeth it is not unreasonable to ask you to clean yourself up.
if you can't do that, then you don't deserve to continue working there. you don't have to brush your teeth at your home, but it sure as hell shouldn't impact you while you are working. this lady wanted to smoke at home and was unable to prevent that smell from coming with her to work. if she didn't have the odor i don't think anybody would have given a damn if she took showers in a portapotty in her private time.
That post has exactly zero relevance to the statements that I made. Has the current economic crisis taught you guys nothing? Employers are worse to employees these days than they have EVER been, because they know that people will put up with it due to a lousy job market. Everyone is always up in arms about the government poking into their lives even the slightest bit, but then they just shrug their shoulders when their employer does it. Greedy corporations got us into this mess, and predictably, have taken advantage of it at every step. And still, no one cares.
Firing someone because they smelled like smoke is a joke, and if you think that is why she got fired, YOU(I use this term generally, not directed at anyone in particular) are the real joke. Someone above her didn't like the fact that she smoked, and used this as an excuse to fire her. Clearly. She bagged her clothes and used air freshener on them. There is nothing more that she could have done, and when she sues them, she will win.
That post has exactly zero relevance to the statements that I made. Has the current economic crisis taught you guys nothing? Employers are worse to employees these days than they have EVER been, because they know that people will put up with it due to a lousy job market. Everyone is always up in arms about the government poking into their lives even the slightest bit, but then they just shrug their shoulders when their employer does it. Greedy corporations got us into this mess, and predictably, have taken advantage of it at every step. And still, no one cares.
Firing someone because they smelled like smoke is a joke, and if you think that is why she got fired, YOU(I use this term generally, not directed at anyone in particular) are the real joke. Someone above her didn't like the fact that she smoked, and used this as an excuse to fire her. Clearly. She bagged her clothes and used air freshener on them. There is nothing more that she could have done, and when she sues them, she will win.
you're just going on wild tangents here. there would be literally nothing a company could do to justify firing an employee bar doing something completely ridiculous and out of the ordinary by your argument. i'm not going to pretend that big business is out to make my life better, but i'm also not going to wildly extrapolate some crazy scenario when this person smelling like cigarette smoke at a cancer clinic for over a month without change seems like a reasonable explanation for firing her.
unless you have some supporting data, you're just making a crazy conspiracy theory. i mean, sure, it's possible, but there isn't much evidence for your claims.
i'm no fan of big business, i know all about company stooges/shills, immoral business practices, the works. i was recently mangled at the hands of comcast and now i'm essentially required to shell out an extra hundred bucks for them. however, i'm not going to assume that this fairly reasonable explanation for terminating this employee is false because they're out to get her and would say anything just to get rid of her.
if she really couldn't change the way she smelled for 60 days after having been asked, i don't see the issue with firing her.
The company had every right to fire that person. It's their money. It's their choice on who they spend it on and how they spend it. There are multiple reasons for wrongful termination, but smelling like cigarette ash is not one of them.
The person wasn't terminated because they smoked at home. Smoking at home is perfectly legal. But if you come in with a bad smell, they have every right to fire you.
A person has a right to choose not to shower, as well. But if you don't wash for a week and come in with a bad smell, you are probably going to get fired eventually.
Would I have fired that person in their position? I don't know.
But until you take a share in paying someone's rent and bills, you have no right in telling them how they can or cannot operate THEIR OWN private property.
Really? So, where do you draw the line? If a company I work for tells me that I can't eat food with sugar while I'm at home, am I expected to comply? What if it's McDonalds? Eating McDonalds makes one look like a fat slob that can't afford a real hamburger and is willing to eat beef-flavored grease. That makes a company look bad. Should they be able to fire me?
You guys are effectively arguing that a company can fire anyone for any reason that they ever feel like, as long as it doesn't directly violate EOE(I assume that this is implied in your absurd arguments).
Here are the reason that a company should be able to fire someone: Because that person did not do their job to a required standard, or because that person participated in illegal activities outside of work. The End. Corporate America does not have the right to just trample all over everyone, but as long as people just act like automatons in instances like this, you are effectively giving them that right.
Also, I don't recall either of you arguing that the lifeguard that got fired deserved it. But there is no difference in what actually happened in these circumstances. In both cases, the employee violated a company request and got fired over it. Just because 'omg smoking' is the case here doesn't make it justified. Last I checked, smoking is not illegal. And the moment that people start letting companies dictate which legal activities that they can participate in while away from work is the beginning of the end for the private rights of the US citizen. Corporate America has shown that it cares about profits, and nothing but profits. They will expect you to make any sacrifice and will take any shortcut if it means more immediate profits.
Just FYI, patients of all kinds can be very susceptible to odors of all kinds. Perfume and cologne are often forbidden or frowned upon in healthcare facilities as well.
Cancer patients can be especially sensitive not only due to treatment but due to the trauma cancer can have physically/emotionally and asking people not to stink of cigs at a cancer treatment center is akin to asking someone not to show their swastika tattoo while working at the holocaust memorial.
It's your right to smoke at home. It's not your right to bring ANY of that habit into the workplace.
Because conservative bias is a far, far worse thing. Liberal bias doesn't, statistically speaking, make people stupid. Conservative bias (or at least Fox's version of it) does.
Fact is, If I was a patient of lung cancer being treated at this hospital, I wouldnt want anyone in it to smell like the Death-sticks that put me their, risking my condition further. A good example is if there was a common disease known as puppycrazy disease. If you saw too many puppies, you suffered from heart attacks due to too much adrenaline. So you are weaned off of seeing puppies while at a hospital. If i was a patient suffering from puppycrazy disease, and the receptionist was wearing a t shirt covered in puppy pictures, i might be at risk of relapse and it would give me discomfort in general.
This was not unfair, and she should have known better then come to a hospital smelling like a smoker.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Credit to Five-Handed Lizard Shop for the amazing Sig. Link
Fact is, If I was a patient of lung cancer being treated at this hospital, I wouldnt want anyone in it to smell like the Death-sticks that put me their, risking my condition further.
Seriously.
If I were working at a support group for alcoholics and I came in every day smelling like booze, you bet your ass I'd get fired, and I should. It's the same deal.
The notion that a company should be able to fire you because smoke at home is completely absurd. Smoking is not illegal, and accordingly, a company has no right whatsoever taking this course of action. So what if you work at a cancer center. What you do at home is still your business.
the company doesn't care or know where she smoked, outside of work.
They just knew that she brought the Nasty smell with her.
If you cleaned sewage tanks as a weekend job, would I expect you to come to work mondays not smelling like sewage? Would I fire you if you kept doing it for 6 months. Would you then argue that I'm firing you for cleaning sewage tanks on your own time?
If you showed up at work covered in spray paint every Monday, would I be wrong asking you to clean yourself up before coming to work?
And just ftr, she smokes 2-3 packs a day. Or more. Nobody ever, ever tells the truth about how much they smoke. Especially not in this situation. She smokes more than a pack, she smokes in her house everywhere, and the reason she can't clean herself up, is the smell is everywhere. She is the one who owns the house that needs the carpets and even hardwood floors removed, and requires 3 coats of inside paint to cover up the smell.. And even then buyers walk in and say "oh, smoker lived here". My friend bought a house like that at a huge discount, and the kitchen walls actually seeped tar about 6 months after they bought it.
Probably smokes in the car too. Because she claims she bagged her clothes etc.
You can get rid of smoke smell if you don't constantly smoke in all the settings that you live in.
Stop smoking inside. Easiest fix to a problem. Ever. Go outside, if its too hot or cold outside for you to enjoy your 5 minute cigarette, good, you just saved $.50.
I smoke about half a pack a day, never inside, never in my car. Its already doing gross things to my body, I don't need it doing the same thing to my stuff/home.
There was actually something similar to this story that happened recently to my father-in-law who is a smoker. He works in a medical center and they recently mandated that all smokers with the company attend anti-smoking classes and if they don't quit in x number of weeks (like 8 weeks or so, I think) then they would be terminated.
What was his response? He quit his job! He didn't talk about it with his wife or anything, he just up and quit! He had no back-up plan or anything. He didn't try to stop smoking, didn't try to hide it from the employer, he just quit. I mean I understand being offended by the employer asking him to do that, but smoking is more important than his job!? Wowza.
You guys are effectively arguing that a company can fire anyone for any reason that they ever feel like, as long as it doesn't directly violate EOE(I assume that this is implied in your absurd arguments).
Well, yeah. That's what at-will employment is, right? A company can get rid of an employee at any time for any (non-discriminatory) reason or for no reason at all. Likewise, an employee can leave a company at any time for any reason or for no reason at all.
Employment with a company is not a contract. For either side.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love." --Carl Sagan
There was actually something similar to this story that happened recently to my father-in-law who is a smoker. He works in a medical center and they recently mandated that all smokers with the company attend anti-smoking classes and if they don't quit in x number of weeks (like 8 weeks or so, I think) then they would be terminated.
What was his response? He quit his job! He didn't talk about it with his wife or anything, he just up and quit! He had no back-up plan or anything. He didn't try to stop smoking, didn't try to hide it from the employer, he just quit. I mean I understand being offended by the employer asking him to do that, but smoking is more important than his job!? Wowza.
I'd be outraged as well. A company has nothing to say over what you do in your own time.
As for this case: I disagree with the company. What I'm more shocked about is that most of you seem to agree with their choice, but I've noticed an almost rabid hate for smoking in the USA before.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
I'd be outraged as well. A company has nothing to say over what you do in your own time.
As for this case: I disagree with the company. What I'm more shocked about is that most of you seem to agree with their choice, but I've noticed an almost rabid hate for smoking in the USA before.
The thing you quoted and the discussion of the thread are 2 very different things. In the quote you have a business trying to force it's employees to do stop doing something legal on their own time. In this thread we are discussing if a company has a right to fire someone for being stinky. We do not have much information and without proof that there may have been a different motive I am inclined to give the company the benefit of the doubt here that they really just didnt want their front door receptionist to stink like an ashtray. I think I saw someone mention that they gave her 6 months to find a solution, which sounds like they were understanding and tried to make it workable but ultimately she stank. Chances are it came up because a patient complained. Call it part of the dress code if you must. If someone comes to work at an office dressed like a hooker every day eventually someone will notice and they could get fired if they dont fix their way of dress.
Hypothetical. Susie works for Sony. During her non working hours, she leads rallies against them and bad mouths them as much as she can. Should Sony be able to fire her since all this stuff was on her on time?
Hypothetical. Susie works for Sony. During her non working hours, she leads rallies against them and bad mouths them as much as she can. Should Sony be able to fire her since all this stuff was on her on time?
No they shouldnt. Its her time once she punches out.
Hypothetical. Susie works for Sony. During her non working hours, she leads rallies against them and bad mouths them as much as she can. Should Sony be able to fire her since all this stuff was on her on time?
Employment is at-will. You can be fired at any time for any reason or for no reason. You can also quit at any time for any reason or for no reason. So, yes, Sony should be able to (and is able to) fire Susie.
In fact, while I was in college I got fired from a job for writing something marginally negative online about my employer. It was just a dumb minimum-wage job so I didn't really care, but this kind of thing can and does actually happen.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love." --Carl Sagan
I'd be outraged as well. A company has nothing to say over what you do in your own time.
As for this case: I disagree with the company. What I'm more shocked about is that most of you seem to agree with their choice, but I've noticed an almost rabid hate for smoking in the USA before.
I have no rabid hatred for smokers. I have many cousins and friends who still smoke, though they struggle with quitting. I have a rabid hatred for cigarette ash smell though. I will not and cannot sleep in a hotel room that is a smoking room. Its tolerable at a bar, and I can tolerate it outdoors for a brief period, but I won't be able to enjoy a meal if I have to smell those nasty cancer sticks. I'm so glad they're not allowed to smoke on planes or restaurants around here.
None of my smoking friends or relatives smoke in their own house or car though, because they know it ruins the house or car for others. Nobody wants to buy your stink-ass smoke car.
A person needs to be able to clean that stink off before returning to their
place of work at the cancer center.
This lady had 6 months to 'clean up' her act. As in confine her smoking to an area of the house or outside, where it won't stink up clothing. If her whole house stinks of smoke, "bagging clothes" doesn't do anything.
She probably smokes in her car, she probably smokes in her house everywhere. And I'm sure she smokes a couple packs a day. After she was warned, she should have made more effort to keep the smell out of her work clothing and hair, etc. etc.
If you are employed at will, your employer does not need good cause to fire you. In every state but Montana (which protects employees who have completed an initial "probationary period" from being fired without cause), employers are free to adopt at-will employment policies, and many of them have. In fact, unless your employer gives some clear indication that it will only fire employees for good cause, the law presumes that you are employed at will.
The woman in that got fired was employed in Minnesota, so it would seem at-will employment applies to her.
It seems that Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Delaware, Idaho, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming have a "covenant of good faith and fair dealing" exception that some courts have taken to mean that a just cause is needed to terminate an employee, or at least that terminations can't occur out of malice in those states.
I'm certainly no legal expert, so maybe I've misunderstood, but it seems the company was entirely within their rights to terminate her.
Or were you talking about Japan? I don't know Japan.
No, I was talking about the US. I don't know Japan either. I was assuming that Timothy, Mimeslayer was talking about Sony of America or at least an american named Susie working at an office/retailer/plant/etc. located in the United States.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love." --Carl Sagan
A decent pop news/blog/aggregator of a starting point but if you want to properly discuss this, you want the juicy bits and the details (e.g., notice of notice of termination of employment/whatever you call it, employment contract/whatever you call it, Minnesota state law, U.S. federal law), really.
Is it OK for a workplace to demand an employee smell decent?
Here, this is a provision of labour law at the time of writing as an employer could state any rationale for termination.
For the malodorous smell in and of itself, no; but, if it's part of something such as continued and chronic poor personal and/or professional some such, then yes.
Employee never smoked at work,
There are issues of evidence.
I personally can't stand cigarette smoke smell,
Justice doesn't care for the smell of smoke.
and I'm siding with the people who fired her.
Cancer patients have to come in and be subjected to smoke?
Irony aside and other than it being irritating in more ways than one, is the concentration on clothing that strong as to have a pathological effect?
I'm not sure if anyone's wondered similarly but what would have happened had she had the smell of faeces, eau de toilette, etc., albeit not overwhelmingly so, on her person?
All in all, I don't know enough to really say anything but, if this is the entirety of the thing and she was indeed fired for the offensive smell, good God. Also, if the vetting/interview process screens for smoking/drinking habits, well, what is the U.S. or wherever it is in the U.S. coming to?
Employers can't discriminate and by and large don't not hire folks simply because they smoke here (whether I agree on this or not is moot, but I'm thoroughly anti-smoking).
Smokers aren't an anathema (unless for other reasons); smoking is, however.
Quote from bocephus »
No they shouldnt. Its her time once she punches out.
Depends, actually.
If, say, Susie's contract says something to the effect that she shall not do exactly that or any of that, lest her employment be terminated or otherwise have some penalty or action levied against her, then it's all okay if she were to be given the boot by Sony.
As with most things, it should be addressed on a case-by-case basis, eh. In this case, the argument is all right but incredibly poorly done by everyone at every stage.
Also,
Quote from Smokers" Rights Advocate Mark Wernimont »
She as a receptionist really had nothing to do with the hands-on health care.It's just one more nail in the coffin of freedom.
While (non-RN) medical receptionists certainly do not do "hands-on health care", you generally check in with them first.
Ms. Cannon sounds like a decent enough person. She's not gotten all too uppity, defensive, and self-righteous about this matter (or civil liberties or discrimination), but I really hope that she can beat her struggle with tobacco (she wants to do so) and move on from this.
Quote from Solaran_X »
What about companies with a zero tolerance drug policy? Are you saying they shouldn't care if you smoke a blunt, snort crack, or shoot up on your own free time?
I don't know about your state but the states/commonwealths in which I resided when in the U.S. have laws that protect employees from termination or potential employees from unfair hiring practices - "discrimination" - on the basis of their deeds outside working hours (past and present and past, respectively), provided they're not illegal. If you do proscribed drugs, poison Kool-Aid, and commit war crimes, for example, you will reap what you sow.
Crap. I forgot what pithy and appropriate one-liner I had in mind.
What about companies with a zero tolerance drug policy? Are you saying they shouldn't care if you smoke a blunt, snort crack, or shoot up on your own free time?
As far as I'm aware, zero tolerance drug policies are about turning up to work stoned/whatever. Again: they have no say over what you do at home.
I have nothing against smoking. But her company told her she needed to stop smelling like smoke at work, which is a perfectly reasonable request because smoking is a cause of cancer and she was working at the cancer treatment center. She refused to comply with the order from her supervisors. She was terminated.
The thing you quoted and the discussion of the thread are 2 very different things. In the quote you have a business trying to force it's employees to do stop doing something legal on their own time. In this thread we are discussing if a company has a right to fire someone for being stinky. We do not have much information and without proof that there may have been a different motive I am inclined to give the company the benefit of the doubt here that they really just didnt want their front door receptionist to stink like an ashtray. I think I saw someone mention that they gave her 6 months to find a solution, which sounds like they were understanding and tried to make it workable but ultimately she stank. Chances are it came up because a patient complained. Call it part of the dress code if you must. If someone comes to work at an office dressed like a hooker every day eventually someone will notice and they could get fired if they dont fix their way of dress.
I have no rabid hatred for smokers. I have many cousins and friends who still smoke, though they struggle with quitting. I have a rabid hatred for cigarette ash smell though. I will not and cannot sleep in a hotel room that is a smoking room. Its tolerable at a bar, and I can tolerate it outdoors for a brief period, but I won't be able to enjoy a meal if I have to smell those nasty cancer sticks. I'm so glad they're not allowed to smoke on planes or restaurants around here.
None of my smoking friends or relatives smoke in their own house or car though, because they know it ruins the house or car for others. Nobody wants to buy your stink-ass smoke car.
A person needs to be able to clean that stink off before returning to their
place of work at the cancer center.
This lady had 6 months to 'clean up' her act. As in confine her smoking to an area of the house or outside, where it won't stink up clothing. If her whole house stinks of smoke, "bagging clothes" doesn't do anything.
She probably smokes in her car, she probably smokes in her house everywhere. And I'm sure she smokes a couple packs a day. After she was warned, she should have made more effort to keep the smell out of her work clothing and hair, etc. etc.
As far as I'm aware, the article states she actually tried very hard to get rid of the smoke-scent. She bagged her clothes etc, etc. However, if the scent has entered into your house, it's nigh impossible to get rid of, as (I think it was) Dcartist said, unless you basically redecorate your entire house, remove the flooring and generally pay a few thousand dollars. I think it's somewhat unreasonable for a company to ask a woman to pay such large amounts of money if she does not want to get fired.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
As far as I'm aware, zero tolerance drug policies are about turning up to work stoned/whatever. Again: they have no say over what you do at home.
As far as I'm aware, the article states she actually tried very hard to get rid of the smoke-scent. She bagged her clothes etc, etc. However, if the scent has entered into your house, it's nigh impossible to get rid of, as (I think it was) Dcartist said, unless you basically redecorate your entire house, remove the flooring and generally pay a few thousand dollars. I think it's somewhat unreasonable for a company to ask a woman to pay such large amounts of money if she does not want to get fired.
Zero tolerance policies in the states tend to be: you test positive, you're fired. No questions asked.
Because conservative bias is a far, far worse thing. Liberal bias doesn't, statistically speaking, make people stupid. Conservative bias (or at least Fox's version of it) does.
Part of the issue here is that people can be pretty sensitive to smells. As someone said prior, people can be affected negatively by even the smallest amount of cologne/perfume, and it can cause irritation. But the bigger issue here is that I'm assuming this is a cancer treatment center. Certain types of cancer, the response from the doctors are to limit/quit smoking. And if you're giving out that type of advice, would you want your patients to have to come in and smell someone who is smoking a pack of day as you wait for your chemo or whatever?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The above post is the opinion of the poster and is not indicative of any stance taken by the President of the United States, Congress, the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, the Department of the Navy, or the United States Marine Corps."
Captain, United States Marines
"Peace through superior firepower."
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is just another example of corporations having too much ability to abuse and control their workers. Ugh.
It's not absurd. They told her she couldn't come to work anymore smelling like cigarette smoke. She did not comply. She was fired for not doing as she was told by her employer.
You guys are effectively arguing that a company can fire anyone for any reason that they ever feel like, as long as it doesn't directly violate EOE(I assume that this is implied in your absurd arguments).
Here are the reason that a company should be able to fire someone: Because that person did not do their job to a required standard, or because that person participated in illegal activities outside of work. The End. Corporate America does not have the right to just trample all over everyone, but as long as people just act like automatons in instances like this, you are effectively giving them that right.
Also, I don't recall either of you arguing that the lifeguard that got fired deserved it. But there is no difference in what actually happened in these circumstances. In both cases, the employee violated a company request and got fired over it. Just because 'omg smoking' is the case here doesn't make it justified. Last I checked, smoking is not illegal. And the moment that people start letting companies dictate which legal activities that they can participate in while away from work is the beginning of the end for the private rights of the US citizen. Corporate America has shown that it cares about profits, and nothing but profits. They will expect you to make any sacrifice and will take any shortcut if it means more immediate profits.
they didn't say she couldn't smoke at home, they requested that she not smell like smoke at work. if you are an employee who goes to business meetings all the time, you would be expected to keep your dental hygiene at a premium. if you start coming in to work with parsley in between your brown teeth it is not unreasonable to ask you to clean yourself up.
if you can't do that, then you don't deserve to continue working there. you don't have to brush your teeth at your home, but it sure as hell shouldn't impact you while you are working. this lady wanted to smoke at home and was unable to prevent that smell from coming with her to work. if she didn't have the odor i don't think anybody would have given a damn if she took showers in a portapotty in her private time.
Firing someone because they smelled like smoke is a joke, and if you think that is why she got fired, YOU(I use this term generally, not directed at anyone in particular) are the real joke. Someone above her didn't like the fact that she smoked, and used this as an excuse to fire her. Clearly. She bagged her clothes and used air freshener on them. There is nothing more that she could have done, and when she sues them, she will win.
you're just going on wild tangents here. there would be literally nothing a company could do to justify firing an employee bar doing something completely ridiculous and out of the ordinary by your argument. i'm not going to pretend that big business is out to make my life better, but i'm also not going to wildly extrapolate some crazy scenario when this person smelling like cigarette smoke at a cancer clinic for over a month without change seems like a reasonable explanation for firing her.
unless you have some supporting data, you're just making a crazy conspiracy theory. i mean, sure, it's possible, but there isn't much evidence for your claims.
i'm no fan of big business, i know all about company stooges/shills, immoral business practices, the works. i was recently mangled at the hands of comcast and now i'm essentially required to shell out an extra hundred bucks for them. however, i'm not going to assume that this fairly reasonable explanation for terminating this employee is false because they're out to get her and would say anything just to get rid of her.
if she really couldn't change the way she smelled for 60 days after having been asked, i don't see the issue with firing her.
The person wasn't terminated because they smoked at home. Smoking at home is perfectly legal. But if you come in with a bad smell, they have every right to fire you.
A person has a right to choose not to shower, as well. But if you don't wash for a week and come in with a bad smell, you are probably going to get fired eventually.
Would I have fired that person in their position? I don't know.
But until you take a share in paying someone's rent and bills, you have no right in telling them how they can or cannot operate THEIR OWN private property.
Just FYI, patients of all kinds can be very susceptible to odors of all kinds. Perfume and cologne are often forbidden or frowned upon in healthcare facilities as well.
Cancer patients can be especially sensitive not only due to treatment but due to the trauma cancer can have physically/emotionally and asking people not to stink of cigs at a cancer treatment center is akin to asking someone not to show their swastika tattoo while working at the holocaust memorial.
It's your right to smoke at home. It's not your right to bring ANY of that habit into the workplace.
This was not unfair, and she should have known better then come to a hospital smelling like a smoker.
Credit to Five-Handed Lizard Shop for the amazing Sig.
Link
Standard: MBC
EDH:
Kaalia
Seriously.
If I were working at a support group for alcoholics and I came in every day smelling like booze, you bet your ass I'd get fired, and I should. It's the same deal.
They just knew that she brought the Nasty smell with her.
If you cleaned sewage tanks as a weekend job, would I expect you to come to work mondays not smelling like sewage? Would I fire you if you kept doing it for 6 months. Would you then argue that I'm firing you for cleaning sewage tanks on your own time?
If you showed up at work covered in spray paint every Monday, would I be wrong asking you to clean yourself up before coming to work?
And just ftr, she smokes 2-3 packs a day. Or more. Nobody ever, ever tells the truth about how much they smoke. Especially not in this situation. She smokes more than a pack, she smokes in her house everywhere, and the reason she can't clean herself up, is the smell is everywhere. She is the one who owns the house that needs the carpets and even hardwood floors removed, and requires 3 coats of inside paint to cover up the smell.. And even then buyers walk in and say "oh, smoker lived here". My friend bought a house like that at a huge discount, and the kitchen walls actually seeped tar about 6 months after they bought it.
Probably smokes in the car too. Because she claims she bagged her clothes etc.
You can get rid of smoke smell if you don't constantly smoke in all the settings that you live in.
I smoke about half a pack a day, never inside, never in my car. Its already doing gross things to my body, I don't need it doing the same thing to my stuff/home.
What was his response? He quit his job! He didn't talk about it with his wife or anything, he just up and quit! He had no back-up plan or anything. He didn't try to stop smoking, didn't try to hide it from the employer, he just quit. I mean I understand being offended by the employer asking him to do that, but smoking is more important than his job!? Wowza.
Well, yeah. That's what at-will employment is, right? A company can get rid of an employee at any time for any (non-discriminatory) reason or for no reason at all. Likewise, an employee can leave a company at any time for any reason or for no reason at all.
Employment with a company is not a contract. For either side.
I'd be outraged as well. A company has nothing to say over what you do in your own time.
As for this case: I disagree with the company. What I'm more shocked about is that most of you seem to agree with their choice, but I've noticed an almost rabid hate for smoking in the USA before.
The thing you quoted and the discussion of the thread are 2 very different things. In the quote you have a business trying to force it's employees to do stop doing something legal on their own time. In this thread we are discussing if a company has a right to fire someone for being stinky. We do not have much information and without proof that there may have been a different motive I am inclined to give the company the benefit of the doubt here that they really just didnt want their front door receptionist to stink like an ashtray. I think I saw someone mention that they gave her 6 months to find a solution, which sounds like they were understanding and tried to make it workable but ultimately she stank. Chances are it came up because a patient complained. Call it part of the dress code if you must. If someone comes to work at an office dressed like a hooker every day eventually someone will notice and they could get fired if they dont fix their way of dress.
No they shouldnt. Its her time once she punches out.
Employment is at-will. You can be fired at any time for any reason or for no reason. You can also quit at any time for any reason or for no reason. So, yes, Sony should be able to (and is able to) fire Susie.
In fact, while I was in college I got fired from a job for writing something marginally negative online about my employer. It was just a dumb minimum-wage job so I didn't really care, but this kind of thing can and does actually happen.
Or were you talking about Japan? I don't know Japan.
I have no rabid hatred for smokers. I have many cousins and friends who still smoke, though they struggle with quitting. I have a rabid hatred for cigarette ash smell though. I will not and cannot sleep in a hotel room that is a smoking room. Its tolerable at a bar, and I can tolerate it outdoors for a brief period, but I won't be able to enjoy a meal if I have to smell those nasty cancer sticks. I'm so glad they're not allowed to smoke on planes or restaurants around here.
None of my smoking friends or relatives smoke in their own house or car though, because they know it ruins the house or car for others. Nobody wants to buy your stink-ass smoke car.
A person needs to be able to clean that stink off before returning to their
place of work at the cancer center.
This lady had 6 months to 'clean up' her act. As in confine her smoking to an area of the house or outside, where it won't stink up clothing. If her whole house stinks of smoke, "bagging clothes" doesn't do anything.
She probably smokes in her car, she probably smokes in her house everywhere. And I'm sure she smokes a couple packs a day. After she was warned, she should have made more effort to keep the smell out of her work clothing and hair, etc. etc.
Just kind of poking around the web a bit, it seems that every state but Montana is an at-will state.
The woman in that got fired was employed in Minnesota, so it would seem at-will employment applies to her.
It seems that Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Delaware, Idaho, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming have a "covenant of good faith and fair dealing" exception that some courts have taken to mean that a just cause is needed to terminate an employee, or at least that terminations can't occur out of malice in those states.
I'm certainly no legal expert, so maybe I've misunderstood, but it seems the company was entirely within their rights to terminate her.
No, I was talking about the US. I don't know Japan either. I was assuming that Timothy, Mimeslayer was talking about Sony of America or at least an american named Susie working at an office/retailer/plant/etc. located in the United States.
Here, this is a provision of labour law at the time of writing as an employer could state any rationale for termination.
For the malodorous smell in and of itself, no; but, if it's part of something such as continued and chronic poor personal and/or professional some such, then yes.
There are issues of evidence.
Justice doesn't care for the smell of smoke.
Irony aside and other than it being irritating in more ways than one, is the concentration on clothing that strong as to have a pathological effect?
I'm not sure if anyone's wondered similarly but what would have happened had she had the smell of faeces, eau de toilette, etc., albeit not overwhelmingly so, on her person?
All in all, I don't know enough to really say anything but, if this is the entirety of the thing and she was indeed fired for the offensive smell, good God. Also, if the vetting/interview process screens for smoking/drinking habits, well, what is the U.S. or wherever it is in the U.S. coming to?
Employers can't discriminate and by and large don't not hire folks simply because they smoke here (whether I agree on this or not is moot, but I'm thoroughly anti-smoking).
Smokers aren't an anathema (unless for other reasons); smoking is, however.
Depends, actually.
If, say, Susie's contract says something to the effect that she shall not do exactly that or any of that, lest her employment be terminated or otherwise have some penalty or action levied against her, then it's all okay if she were to be given the boot by Sony.
As with most things, it should be addressed on a case-by-case basis, eh. In this case, the argument is all right but incredibly poorly done by everyone at every stage.
Also,
While (non-RN) medical receptionists certainly do not do "hands-on health care", you generally check in with them first.
Ms. Cannon sounds like a decent enough person. She's not gotten all too uppity, defensive, and self-righteous about this matter (or civil liberties or discrimination), but I really hope that she can beat her struggle with tobacco (she wants to do so) and move on from this.
I don't know about your state but the states/commonwealths in which I resided when in the U.S. have laws that protect employees from termination or potential employees from unfair hiring practices - "discrimination" - on the basis of their deeds outside working hours (past and present and past, respectively), provided they're not illegal. If you do proscribed drugs, poison Kool-Aid, and commit war crimes, for example, you will reap what you sow.
Crap. I forgot what pithy and appropriate one-liner I had in mind.
— jean-baptiste alphonse karr, les guêpes (1849)
wiki subforum @ mtgs forums * mtgs wiki * site rules
As far as I'm aware, zero tolerance drug policies are about turning up to work stoned/whatever. Again: they have no say over what you do at home.
As far as I'm aware, the article states she actually tried very hard to get rid of the smoke-scent. She bagged her clothes etc, etc. However, if the scent has entered into your house, it's nigh impossible to get rid of, as (I think it was) Dcartist said, unless you basically redecorate your entire house, remove the flooring and generally pay a few thousand dollars. I think it's somewhat unreasonable for a company to ask a woman to pay such large amounts of money if she does not want to get fired.
Zero tolerance policies in the states tend to be: you test positive, you're fired. No questions asked.
Captain, United States Marines
"Peace through superior firepower."