Scotts Miracle-Gro[an] Revisited
To the Editor (Columbus Dispatch),
Lynn Boydelatour’s letter regarding Scotts Miracle-Gro’s policy of firing workers who refuse to quit smoking off the job * was not unexpected. There are many good-hearted Puritans out there who can’t help themselves. They must be about, “bettering” lesser folks.
Boydelatour applauds Scotts, saying, “These are the kind of self-sacrificing individuals I’d rather cast my lot with.” Well, Scotts’ CEO flatly admitted that the policy was to save the company money. The only ones who would be sacrificing are those who are fired, about whom Boydelatour says “Scotts need not worry.”
Boydelatour is correct that Captain Cook’s sailors might not have gotten their healthful fruit juice without the threat of being flogged, and, for that matter, God’s people might not have avoided trichinosis if Moses had simply told them pork was hazardous to their health.
What Puritans fail to recognize is that this is a FREE country. When businessmen are granted the powers of God or even of the sailing ship captains of yesteryear, we may or may not be healthier, but we most certainly will not be free.
Yours - Tom Harker
* For more information, I have re-posted an earlier posting directly below this one.
Hey Folks,
Above is a letter to the Dispatch in answer to one of today’s letters.
No matter what the issue, there will always be SOMEONE, some half-assed fool, who will pompously address an issue based on his personal feelings or on some narrow factual point that makes no sense in the larger context.
In this instance, the writer clearly expresses concern over workers becoming ill from smoking, but in the end suggests Scotts not worry over families whose breadwinner is suddenly unemployed – not a very healthful situation.
Likewise, his analogy to Captain Cook and other sea captains runs counter to his point. Captains such as Cook had life and death control over their employees, and could control every aspect of their lives. Moreover, they could do so in ways that best served their personal careers and the investments of their backers. In regard to forced ingestion of citrus juice to prevent scurvy, this happened also to serve the sailors’ longevity as well – as those Scotts workers who are able to quit on command would also be served.
But Scotts’ CEO is not endowed by our constitution with life and death control over his workers, regardless of how the corporation-owned government interprets the law.
The analogy breaks down further when the writer relates that many captains refused to follow a maritime law requiring the stowing of citrus on voyages in order to cut costs. So much for the letter-writer’s characterization of the captains – and by analogy, the Scotts CEO – as “self-sacrificing” individuals.
Finally the writer presents the classical, cavalier attitude of the “let them eat cake” crowd of wannabe aristocrats, those that by income-level or attitude find it easy to move lesser souls around the board of life without regard to their welfare. To him, if it helps the company and is no skin off his nose and gets a few people to stop smoking (a legal, if unhealthy, practice), then to hell with the rest and to hell with “A man’s home is his castle.” He apparently believes that, just as the farmer has a vested interest in keeping the animals he owns healthy until they are slaughtered, the entremanure has an interest in keeping up the health of the workers he owns – at least until they no longer work for him.
- Uke Man
Lynn Boydelatour’s letter regarding Scotts Miracle-Gro’s policy of firing workers who refuse to quit smoking off the job * was not unexpected. There are many good-hearted Puritans out there who can’t help themselves. They must be about, “bettering” lesser folks.
Boydelatour applauds Scotts, saying, “These are the kind of self-sacrificing individuals I’d rather cast my lot with.” Well, Scotts’ CEO flatly admitted that the policy was to save the company money. The only ones who would be sacrificing are those who are fired, about whom Boydelatour says “Scotts need not worry.”
Boydelatour is correct that Captain Cook’s sailors might not have gotten their healthful fruit juice without the threat of being flogged, and, for that matter, God’s people might not have avoided trichinosis if Moses had simply told them pork was hazardous to their health.
What Puritans fail to recognize is that this is a FREE country. When businessmen are granted the powers of God or even of the sailing ship captains of yesteryear, we may or may not be healthier, but we most certainly will not be free.
Yours - Tom Harker
* For more information, I have re-posted an earlier posting directly below this one.
Hey Folks,
Above is a letter to the Dispatch in answer to one of today’s letters.
No matter what the issue, there will always be SOMEONE, some half-assed fool, who will pompously address an issue based on his personal feelings or on some narrow factual point that makes no sense in the larger context.
In this instance, the writer clearly expresses concern over workers becoming ill from smoking, but in the end suggests Scotts not worry over families whose breadwinner is suddenly unemployed – not a very healthful situation.
Likewise, his analogy to Captain Cook and other sea captains runs counter to his point. Captains such as Cook had life and death control over their employees, and could control every aspect of their lives. Moreover, they could do so in ways that best served their personal careers and the investments of their backers. In regard to forced ingestion of citrus juice to prevent scurvy, this happened also to serve the sailors’ longevity as well – as those Scotts workers who are able to quit on command would also be served.
But Scotts’ CEO is not endowed by our constitution with life and death control over his workers, regardless of how the corporation-owned government interprets the law.
The analogy breaks down further when the writer relates that many captains refused to follow a maritime law requiring the stowing of citrus on voyages in order to cut costs. So much for the letter-writer’s characterization of the captains – and by analogy, the Scotts CEO – as “self-sacrificing” individuals.
Finally the writer presents the classical, cavalier attitude of the “let them eat cake” crowd of wannabe aristocrats, those that by income-level or attitude find it easy to move lesser souls around the board of life without regard to their welfare. To him, if it helps the company and is no skin off his nose and gets a few people to stop smoking (a legal, if unhealthy, practice), then to hell with the rest and to hell with “A man’s home is his castle.” He apparently believes that, just as the farmer has a vested interest in keeping the animals he owns healthy until they are slaughtered, the entremanure has an interest in keeping up the health of the workers he owns – at least until they no longer work for him.
- Uke Man
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home