You smoke? You're fired!

[username]

I tried to get you to keep it on the level of opinions on how things ought to be ideally, but you, like Tony,

And I told you that after being insulted twice by you that I was done having any discussion on this topic with you.

I disagree with Shanek just as much as you on this issue, but Shanek has never insulted me twice in a row or even once that I recall.

 

[Tony]

And the employee does?

Yes.

This is just an example of how one-sided you are. You assume the employee is in the worst possible straits, while the employer is sitting pretty.

No, I recognize reality. If the employer wasn't atleast partially "sitting pretty", then WTF is he doing in business in the first place? You assume desirable jobs are flowing like milk and honey.

No, it's not. It's name-calling. This in no way whatsoever represente feudalism.

It mirrors feudalism. It's not 100% exactly like, I never said it was.






For sake of clarity, here's the original article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4213441.stm

1) Is there a contract holding the employment agreement to a certain term?

No, the article mentions nothing of a contract.

2) If the answer to #1 is "yes," is there anything in the contract where the employee agrees to not smoke?

No.

3) If the answer to 1 is "no," then how does either side not have the ability and the right to terminate the agreement at any time they want, for whatever they want?

For the same reason that you comming into my house and not making a contract with me not to rob you doesn't give me the right to rob you.

4) Can the employer force the employee to stay and work for him under any conditions, or does this restriction on their arrangement only work one way?

Who said anything about letting the employee work under any condition? We're talking about what employees do away from work on their own time.

 

[Thanz]

There isn't. Either side has the right to terminate their voluntary agreement for whatever reason they choose, absent a contract stating otherwise. Nothing is being coerced.

I understand this to be generally true in the U.S. Here is a link that explains the "employment at will" doctrine.

http://jobsearchtech.about.com/od/laborlaws/l/aa092402.htm

In Ontario, where I live, the common law has developed to imply certain terms into an unwritten contract for employment. One of those terms is that an employee will not be fired without cause unless reasonable notice is given. You can still be fired, but the employer needs to give you adequate notice or payment in lieu of notice.

 

[username]

Wrong!

What you just described is coercion


Come again?

Please understand that I am genuinely confused that you would view my example as coercion, but not firing an employee who refuses to change his legal, private behaviors and submit to testing to ensure compliance.

My point was that employers usually have more power than employees in an employment situation. This is why labor unions came about.

The counter argument seems to be that employment is a voluntary contract between 2 equal parties therefore any terms agreed to are valid (libertarian dogma).

My ultimate point is that the terms of the employment contract (like agreeing to give up the first born for sex work) is the kind of thing that people agree to only because of the imbalance of power between the employee and employer.

If we believe (as I believe you and Shanek do) that the employer has the right to include not smoking on private time as a condition of employment then it seems there is no limit to what terms an employer can require.

What an employee will agree to depends upon how much he needs the job. The tighter the employment market, the more unreasonable the demands can become.

This will lead to corporate fascism or neo-feudalism, whichever term you prefer.

What a person does on his own time is of no legitimate concern of any employer therefore my opinion is that hiring practices may not discriminate against legal, private behaviors.

Not as a formal policy anyway.

 

[shanek]

Yes you are, I demonstrated how you were.

No, you just asserted it.

[qoute]Ok, since the employees don't have to work harder and an employee doesn't have to work on his day off, production suffers.[/quote]

Or, the other workers pull together, or the guy comes in on his day off, because they believe in what they're doing and want the company to succeed. Is this really such a foreign concept for you?

 

[shanek]

Okay, thanks for clarifying because your first repsonse made it sound like they could.

They can ask you if they can, and they can fire you if you don't agree, but they can't force their way onto your property.

In that case isn't my blood every bit as much my property as my private communications from home?

Yes. And you're perfectly within your rights to walk on out the door.

You know, if you work at most jobs, they won't let you sit around all day and twiddle your thumbs. Most of them want you to do work, and will actually fire you if you don't do this. If the above is an abrogation of property rights, then what I just mentioned is slavery!

Do people really not see the fallacy here?

 

[shanek]

If an employer were to tell me that my employment would be terminated unless I agreed to include unlimited sex as part of the deal would you support the *legal* right of the employer to even suggest those terms?

They're most likely opening themselves up to a civil suit in that case. Of course if they do anything that causes physical or emotional damage they're responsible.

 

[shanek]

Well, there's proof that you live in an alternative universe. I am self-employed and my insurance is 3+ times what a group policy would cost - much as Nyarlathotep's experience. I just don't believe your assertion, shanek.

The plan I was under with at my last job was $850/month. The insurance I have now that I'm self-employed is $150/month. And for all the stuff I use, it has the same benefits—actually, the copay is a bit lower. It just doesn't have chiropractic and all sorts of other things included with it that I'll never need or use. That's the difference. Plans that include those things cost more, for obvious reasons. And when I was working, I wasn't given the choice of plans that didn't include those things or opting out and buying my own insurance (well, I could have opted out, but it's not like I could have gotten that $850/month for myself).

 

[shanek]

Let's wait for a tight employment market and have to agree to give our firstborn to the CEO as a sex worker in order to retain employment. It would be a voluntary contract between 2 equals with no coercion involved right? I mean, I could just leave. No pressure.

Um, excuse me, but there's a 3rd person involved there who didn't give consent.

 

[shanek]

No, I recognize reality. If the employer wasn't atleast partially "sitting pretty", then WTF is he doing in business in the first place?

Let me clue you in on something: Running a business is rough. Particularly a small business. In fact, in many cases the people employed by a small businessman make more money than he does. And they get a reliable paycheck every week; his pay rises and drops with the market situation. He may even go for a month or more with no pay at all.

You assume desirable jobs are flowing like milk and honey.

No, I don't; I just reject your assumption that business owners are all fat cats with limousines and private jets.

No, the article mentions nothing of a contract.

Then either side can terminate the agreement any time they want.

For the same reason that you comming into my house and not making a contract with me not to rob you doesn't give me the right to rob you.

Can the weaseling; no one's being robbed here. But if you come into my house, you will not smoke or do drugs, you will not talk sports, and you will not juggle open umbrellas. You don't like it, there's the door. My house, my rules. And I can eject you at any time, just as you can leave at any time.

We're talking about what employees do away from work on their own time.

I was pointing out that you're a biased hypocrite, giving the employees "rights" you won't give the empolyer.

 

[shanek]

In Ontario, where I live, the common law has developed to imply certain terms into an unwritten contract for employment. One of those terms is that an employee will not be fired without cause unless reasonable notice is given. You can still be fired, but the employer needs to give you adequate notice or payment in lieu of notice.

Does it go the other way round? Can an employee just up and quit or does he have to give notice?

 

[username]

They're most likely opening themselves up to a civil suit in that case. Of course if they do anything that causes physical or emotional damage they're responsible.

And limiting what a person may do on their own time isn't going to qualify as an event that causes emotional damage?

 

[username]

Does it go the other way round? Can an employee just up and quit or does he have to give notice?

In most cases no. If you work at Burger King you can get away with it, but in a professional position you would be shooting yourself in the foot to not give notice.

 

[crimresearch]

And I told you that after being insulted twice by you that I was done having any discussion on this topic with you.

I disagree with Shanek just as much as you on this issue, but Shanek has never insulted me twice in a row or even once that I recall.

If you don't want to be insulted like that, then quit fabricating things I never said, and I won't be compelled to 'insult ' you by pointing your strawmen out.
You are 'done with me' because you aren't here for facts or civil discourse, and I have kept this entire exchange on that basis, while you have not.

 

[username]

Um, excuse me, but there's a 3rd person involved there who didn't give consent.

Fine, then go back to my example of the employee who has to consent to sex with the boss or they lose their job.

Explain why this is wrong in your view since it would just be part of an employment contract.

You appear to be missing the point entirely here. It is not reasonable to attach conditions to employment that are not related to the job one does.

Smoking is a non issue for employers. If they don't like smoking they can prohibit it while the employee is on the clock or on the property.

When employees consent to unreasonable demands they do so because of coercion, not free will. They look at the employment market and determine that if they lose their job they may end up losing their home before they can get another job. So, they comply with the absurd demands of their employer. Should they have to?

The employment contract is not a contract between equals. If it was there would never have been a labor movement.

I still find it incredible that a self proclaimed libertarian would take such an anti civil rights position.

 

[shanek]

And limiting what a person may do on their own time isn't going to qualify as an event that causes emotional damage?

Depends on the limitation, I would think. In any case, that's something to be awarded damages in civil court, not to force continued employment.

 

[shanek]

In most cases no. If you work at Burger King you can get away with it, but in a professional position you would be shooting yourself in the foot to not give notice.

I'm talking about what the law says, not what would the professional consequences be.

 

[username]

If you don't want to be insulted like that, then quit fabricating things I never said, and I won't be compelled to 'insult ' you by pointing your strawmen out.
You are 'done with me' because you aren't here for facts or civil discourse, and I have kept this entire exchange on that basis, while you have not.

Sure you have. Let's recap:

I said: I think you are contradicting yourself in this paragraph.

You said: Uhhmmm... You've crossed the line from discourse to debate tactics...you are making up things I never said, and then arguing against them.

I said: I may have misunderstood your argument. Please don't assume that a misunderstanding means I am resorting to dishonest tactics.

you said: So, you have no links to any facts, but think that dredging up an extreme example and demanding that I provide court cites for your strawman, isn't dishonest?

You've made the extreme assertions here, you provide the evidence.

And while you are at it...Grow up.

My last post to you said: Ok, so you have now twice insulted me while not adding anything to the discussion.
Discussion (with you) is over.

And it is.

 

[shanek]

Fine, then go back to my example of the employee who has to consent to sex with the boss or they lose their job.

Already have.

Explain why this is wrong in your view since it would just be part of an employment contract.

Hold on, stop moving the goalposts! You never said it was a part of any contract. That changes everything, and if the person didn't like that, they wouldn't sign the contract.

You appear to be missing the point entirely here. It is not reasonable to attach conditions to employment that are not related to the job one does.

Shouldn't it be between employees and employers to decide that for themselves?

Smoking is a non issue for employers.

Apparently, some of them don't feel that way.

When employees consent to unreasonable demands they do so because of coercion, not free will.

Balderdash. Socialist apologetics, nothing more.

The employment contract is not a contract between equals.

Already rebutted.

If it was there would never have been a labor movement.

Again, balderdash. The labor movement was a political movement used by the Socialists to get their policies enacted.

I still find it incredible that a self proclaimed libertarian would take such an anti civil rights position.

Civil rights have nothing to do with this.

 

[username]

Shanek,

Let's just deal with the main points of our disagreement and leave all satellite issues aside, OK?

If I understand your position correctly your main point is that the employment contract is freely entered into by both parties and both parties are free to make whatever demands they wish and both parties are free to accept or reject the other's demands as they wish.

Is this a correct understanding of your argument?

Cuz if that is your position then my main argument is that the employment contract is rarely entered into by parties with equal power and government has a valid interest in ensuring the more powerful party doesn't take advantage of the weaker party.