Page 1 of 2
Sugar Plum Fairy Gets Scrooged
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 2:34 am
by Lord Jim
Sugar Plum Fairy Fired for Using 'Naughty Words' Draws Community Support
ST. CHARLES, Mo. – The Sugar Plum Fairy was fired for cursing, but a growing number of fans are hoping she'll get her job back.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that Mike Swart, the same man who started a Facebook page to save the Sugar Plum Fairy's job, is organizing a food drive on her behalf.
"They can bring a bag of sugar, a pack of cookies, some candy -- things the Sugar Plum Fairy might endorse -- or canned goods," said Swart, of St. Charles. "I think we should harness the passion and the excitement everybody has here and do something good with it."
Laura Coppinger, 29, of St. Louis, is an actress who has portrayed the Sugar Plum Fairy for the past six years on historic Main Street in St. Charles during the annual Christmas Traditions festival.
She was recently fired for cursing -- not on the job, but when she went to take a drug test required of all city employees.
Coppinger accidentally flushed the toilet during the drug test, which is prohibited. When told she would have to wait at the drug testing facility until she could provide another urine sample, she said she swore out of frustration because the delay meant she would miss a job interview.
A short time later, she was told to go home.
The city's human resources department said she violated the code of conduct for a Christmas Traditions character by uttering "naughty words."
Coppinger said she has gotten an outpouring of support since she made her story public on Saturday.
"It's very exciting to know that the Sugar Plum Fairy has inspired so many people and has made people's Christmases and that people are standing up for her and for me as the actress playing her," she said.
A St. Charles spokeswoman has declined comment, citing the issue as a personnel matter.
Several Main Street merchants are upset by the firing.
"I'm just really disappointed that common sense can't win out," said Chris Stergos, the owner of Patches Quilt & Button Shoppe.
"We rely on the reputation of what we do down here, and this really puts us in such a negative light."
Stergos said some have suggested that the merchants hire Coppinger as a private contractor to work the monthlong festival.
"I'd be all for it," she said. "The Sugar Plum Fairy always has been one of the biggest attractions.
Read more:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/15/su ... z1eD0BtcnM
What total control freak BS....
She didn't swear in costume, she didn't swear in front of the kids...
She swore because she screwed up at a drug testing facility, taking their control freak drug test...
And BTW, she makes a marvelous Sugar Plum Fairy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGP0H04QY-M
Re: Sugar Plum Fairy Gets Scrooged
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 2:49 am
by Gob
Mad as fuck.
Re: Sugar Plum Fairy Gets Scrooged
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 6:53 am
by dales
Missouri, what more needs to be said.
Re: Sugar Plum Fairy Gets Scrooged
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 2:42 pm
by Rick
They didn't say anything about flushing when I took my piss test.
Wonder if all this publicity helped her with either job?
The one she had or the one she was going to interview for...
ETA: Well I guess she got something else.
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/e ... lum-Fairy/
ST. CHARLES, Mo. — A woman who was fired from her job as a Sugar Plum Fairy got an early Christmas present from two St. Charles merchants.
Laura Coppinger was fired as the fairy after she cursed while taking a city-mandated drug test. The city said she violated a code of conduct for Christmas characters.
Coppinger portrayed the Sugar Plum Fairy for six years during St. Charles' annual Christmas Traditions festival.
Two St. Charles merchants — Riverside Sweets and Grandma's Cookies — hired her to work during the holidays. The business owners say they haven't decided exactly what Coppinger will do, but she won't be the Sugar Plum Fairy.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports (
http://bit.ly/v46Upw) that the 29-year-old Coppinger, of St. Louis, said she appreciates the support she got from St. Charles residents.
Re: Sugar Plum Fairy Gets Scrooged
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 2:55 pm
by Guinevere
I'd like to see that code of conduct, and know if they how the city has handled other cursing occasions. The sanction certainly seems harsh.
As for flushing during a test, I believe during my one and only drug test -- for my first law firm job -- that I was told to stay away from the flush, or the sink and running water.
Re: Sugar Plum Fairy Gets Scrooged
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:01 pm
by Rick
Wow, they never mentioned any of that stuff.
They didn't even provide a voyeur, I had to hunt someone down to give the cup to.
Re: Sugar Plum Fairy Gets Scrooged
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:30 pm
by Andrew D
If you have to take a piss test, piss on the floor. The testers will still be able to "gather the evidence".
Re: Sugar Plum Fairy Gets Scrooged
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:32 pm
by Rick
Andrew D wrote:If you have to take a piss test, piss on the floor. The testers will still be able to "gather the evidence".
Possibly, but then it would be mixed with everyone else piss and I might not have gotten the job...
Re: Sugar Plum Fairy Gets Scrooged
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:39 pm
by Andrew D
Re: Sugar Plum Fairy Gets Scrooged
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:49 pm
by Lord Jim
Possibly, but then it would be mixed with everyone else piss and I might not have gotten the job...
Yes, Keld, pissing on the floor is probably a deal breaker for most jobs one might apply for...
There are a couple of things I wonder about this:
Was there somebody at the testing facility who had it in for this woman, and that's why they went to the trouble of reporting her?
Also since she was terminated for cursing while not in costume and not on the job, would she have been terminated if she had been overheard quietly saying a curse word in a conversation while having a drink with a friend at a bar? Or how about if she was sitting in her own backyard?
It's just absurd....
Re: Sugar Plum Fairy Gets Scrooged
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:52 pm
by Rick
Yeah, I can imagine the street department held to the same standard.
I must say piss testing for a seasonal gig, seems awfully costly.
Wonder who pays for them?
Mine was paid for by the state...
Re: Sugar Plum Fairy Gets Scrooged
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 4:03 pm
by Andrew D
Is this whole piss-testing thing all that common?
I could pass one easily.
But in all the jobs I've had over more than three decades, I've never been asked to take a piss test.
Of course, I've been self-employed for more than one of those decades, and I've never demanded a sample of my own urine ....
Re: Sugar Plum Fairy Gets Scrooged
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 4:15 pm
by Rick
Is this whole piss-testing thing all that common?
I don't know.
Testing became policy, after I was already employed, for new hires and as a requirement for advancement.
Advancement to be differentiated with pay raise in one's current position.
I went to an entirely different pay grade/position.
I did not fear the test and I didn't have to pay for it.
Matter of fact, I knew I had the position because of the test. It's a formality for lack of a better term.
They're not gonna waste the money on someone they're not going to hire...
Re: Sugar Plum Fairy Gets Scrooged
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 4:37 pm
by Joe Guy
I searched for this story and found
this.
Could it be true?
Re: Sugar Plum Fairy Gets Scrooged
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 5:20 pm
by Lord Jim
That's interesting Joe...
If you watch the CNN clip I linked to, at the end the woman is interviewed, and she doesn't dispute the curse word incident, so it must have happened...
Could they have been looking for a reason to can her because of her other gig? Maybe....
It appears that she is an aspiring actress, who like many aspiring actors and actresses, does a lot of jobs to make ends meet while trying to get a break....
(I might suggest that her first move in that regard might be to get the hell out of St. Charles.... )
But with all the publicity she's gotten with this Sugar Plum Fairy thing, maybe now she'll get an agent and get a real shot...
Re: Sugar Plum Fairy Gets Scrooged
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 7:59 pm
by Gob
"Burlesque" a trendy term for a stripper, used so the PC crowd can get a hard on without being seen as sexist.
Re: Sugar Plum Fairy Gets Scrooged
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 8:01 pm
by Lord Jim
I have to say, her act doesn't look all that trashy...
(I've certainly seen trashier)
Re: Sugar Plum Fairy Gets Scrooged
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:55 pm
by loCAtek
Andrew D wrote:Is this whole piss-testing thing all that common?
I could pass one easily.
But in all the jobs I've had over more than three decades, I've never been asked to take a piss test.
Of course, I've been self-employed for more than one of those decades, and I've never demanded a sample of my own urine ....
Many jobs, particularly if they are retail ones, will require you take one. That's their prerogative to make this an employment requirement or not. If it's a federal or state job then that requirement is mandatory, and in this case the test was city-mandated.
In my Vida Loca, I've had to take a lot of whiz quizzes, (while onboard ship it happened thrice in one week!) ...and I've noticed that military drug-testing is slightly different from civilian testing, while civilian testing can differ according to whichever lab conducts it.
Definitely, the military is the strictest and most intrusive. For men this may not apply since they are more used to public urinating, but for women it can disconcerting that during drug-testing, you are not even allowed to close the urinal stall door and have to be watched by the corpsman, or master-at-arms at all times.
While the observer is there, they will instruct you on what is allowed, at every step.
Each test consistently follows the same rules.
In the civilian sector, there can be variations in the rules between medical labs that are doing the drug testing. Most allow you privacy behind a door; some say don't flush unobserved; some say don't wash unobserved; some say you can't release your sample until you sign a form, etc.
....I've never heard of a facility, including the military, that regulated language during the testing. Unless, this Laura Coppinger was cursively protesting taking a second test, I can't see how her personal expression had any relevance to the test.
If her language was part of the test, then that as well as the flushing requirements appear to not have been communicated properly.
Re: Sugar Plum Fairy Gets Scrooged
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:04 pm
by BoSoxGal
UA testing is not a definite requirement for every state or federal job; I've had both state and federal jobs and have never been UA tested in my life (except in conjunction with medical care).
UA testing is not that costly; I know this because every day in Court we discuss UA testing in light of criminal defendants, juvenile delinquents or parents whose children are subject of dependency/neglect actions. Our tests cost the criminal subjects $7 per test.
eta: Random & pre-employment UA testing seems to have come about in the 80s as an aspect of the DARE era. It would be interesting to see figures on the overall cost of employment-related drug testing programs v. any costs that could be attributed to on the job drug use in the form of accidents or diminished productivity. Is all this drug testing 'worth' it?
Re: Sugar Plum Fairy Gets Scrooged
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:22 pm
by Guinevere
I have also had state and federal jobs but the only drug test I've ever had to take was for a very large law firm. They also ran a credit check. And of course didn't tell me any of this until my first day actually on the job. I wasn't thrilled about the intrusiveness, but really had no choice at that point.
