You smoke? You're fired!

[Nyarlathotep]

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.

Neither tapping my home phone nor intercepting my home e-mails necessarily requires them to enter my property.

The relevant question being, how intrusive can the company be in enforcing its rules before their actions become illegal?

 

[shanek]

My opinion is they shouldn't have been placed into that position by an employer. It isn't the business of th employer what they do on their own time.

But you're basing that on the argument that the employer is in a superior bargaining position, leaving the employee to face unemployment if he doesn't go along with what the employer says. Clearly, this new information shoots down that argument.

If you simply want the last word then say so and take the last word.

No, I want to discuss the issue and present and refute arguments. If we don't convince each other, so what? There are lurkers reading this thread who are still trying to decide.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The relevant question being, how intrusive can the company be in enforcing its rules before their actions become illegal?

That's really a problem for you?

How about, when they violate a law..

 

[Nyarlathotep]

That's really a problem for you?

How about, when they violate a law..

Actually, I am asking because I am curious as to the libertarian take on this. It could be argued that my employer tapping my phone in order to monitor whether I am giving away trade secrets in violation of an employment contract would NOT be an initiaton of force as long as they didn't enter my property against my will. Thus, it wouldn't be illegal in a libertarian society (provided they had the permission of whoever owned the phone lines). i am curious how a libertarian society would handle this and Shane seems like the logical person to ask on this board.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Could those who think there need to be legal checks on employers because they normally have a stronger bargaining position also agree that there should be checks built in to deal with the reverse situation, where the employee is in a stronger position?

If so, what should they be?

If not, why not?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Actually, I am asking because I am curious as to the libertarian take on this. It could be argued that my employer tapping my phone in order to monitor whether I am giving away trade secrets in violation of an employment contract would NOT be an initiaton of force as long as they didn't enter my property against my will. Thus, it wouldn't be illegal in a libertarian society (provided they had the permission of whoever owned the phone lines). i am curious how a libertarian society would handle this and Shane seems like the logical person to ask on this board.

I'll wait to see Shane's response, but I would suspect that wiretapping by anyone, is probably pretty anti-libertarian..

 

[username]

But you're basing that on the argument that the employer is in a superior bargaining position, leaving the employee to face unemployment if he doesn't go along with what the employer says. Clearly, this new information shoots down that argument.



No, I want to discuss the issue and present and refute arguments. If we don't convince each other, so what? There are lurkers reading this thread who are still trying to decide.

Yes, but lurkers aren't going to benefit from my endlessly repeating myself.

Here is my position in a nutshell:

• Employers have the right to hire/fire at will (freedom of association)
• Individuals have a right to privacy
• These 2 rights are in conflict in the case of the employer who fires those who smoke on their own time or refuse to vote for the employer's preferred candidate

I believe the employer's right to hire/fire at will should be limited to factors that are the employer's business, not factors that are none of their business. Factors they can't even know about under normal circumstances without invading the privacy of the individual.

Testing employees for the use of a legal product is something that is accomplished by coercion when the employee either has to give up his right to privacy or lose his job.

My position is that it ought to be illegal for an employee to ever be required to give up his right to privacy concerning how he uses his own time when not on the company clock or face punitive consequences.

While on the clock the employer is free to monitor the employee any way they wish, the employee has no right to privacy while on the company clock.

So, that is my position. That has been my position. Any lurkers can now see a condensed presentation of my position. No need for yet again restating it.

 

[Tony]

I'll wait to see Shane's response, but I would suspect that wiretapping by anyone, is probably pretty anti-libertarian..

I doubt it. As long as it's a private company and not the government they can pretty much get away with anything.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I'll wait to see Shane's response, but I would suspect that wiretapping by anyone, is probably pretty anti-libertarian..

I would suspect that too. So I wonder why drawing someone's blood who doesn't want it drawn is okey-dokey.

 

[username]

Could those who think there need to be legal checks on employers because they normally have a stronger bargaining position also agree that there should be checks built in to deal with the reverse situation, where the employee is in a stronger position?

If so, what should they be?

If not, why not?

I think both employer and employee have rights. We are dealing with a concrete, specific scenario where an employer fires for whether the employee smokes on his own time or whether the employee votes as the employer dictates.

All arguments have been dealing with that specific scenario.

Now, would I advocate protecting the rights of the employer when the employee has the upper hand in negotiations? Of course. Government's job is to protect the rights of it's citizens regardless of whether those citizens are employees or employers. What would I recommend? I have no idea because I can't think of a scenario. If you have a real world scenario where you believe the rights of an employer were violated by an employee in a strong bargaining position you should start a thread on it and it can be hashed out.

 

[shanek]

I'm pretty much with you on this Shane, and others on your "side," but there seems to be quite a middle ground being ignored, that being it's much easier for a corporation to dictate what goes into that "agreed upon" contract than it is for employees.

Well, sure, because the company sets a policy for everyone and individuals set their own policy. But that doesn't mean they can get away with not being responsive to their employees. You need to remember that there are many corporations setting their own policies, and those policies factor into which corporation people want to work for.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I would suspect that too. So I wonder why drawing someone's blood who doesn't want it drawn is okey-dokey.

I don't see Shane saying that at all. ( O.K. To be forced to give blood sample . ) No one was ' forced ' to have their blood drawn. It was a condition of continued employment.

I understand how some see it as coercion, but I find it no more unreasonable than requiring drug or alcohol use standards..

I personally feel it would have been more fair to have grandfathered the employees who were there before the policy was implemented, but penalized them with higher insurance premiums or denied them subsidized insurance all together..

 

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Why would there be? We are talking about unemployed people, not mass exterminations.

Au contraire.. The concentration camps are excellent examples of employer - worker relations gone awry..

Actually, despite Claus's apparent assertion (an excuse, apparently, to connect my argument with all sorts of irrelevant things, as he usually does when he can't refute the argument, instead using emotion to try and peg me as being "heartless"), we aren't talking about unemployed people. We're talking about people who are employed, with current, up-to-date work history, who have been given fifteen months notice of a change in employment policy. Any employed person with a current work history can easily find a job during that time.

Your pictures from the U.S. depression era are certainly irrelevant to Shane's comments..

Absolutely. But just what we've come to expect from Claus the Pseudo-Skeptic.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I think both employer and employee have rights. We are dealing with a concrete, specific scenario where an employer fires for whether the employee smokes on his own time or whether the employee votes as the employer dictates.

All arguments have been dealing with that specific scenario.

Now, would I advocate protecting the rights of the employer when the employee has the upper hand in negotiations? Of course. Government's job is to protect the rights of it's citizens regardless of whether those citizens are employees or employers. What would I recommend? I have no idea because I can't think of a scenario. If you have a real world scenario where you believe the rights of an employer were violated by an employee in a strong bargaining position you should start a thread on it and it can be hashed out.

Well what about a maximum wage? Why should people who happen to have talent in a particular field, say acting or sport, be able to hold film companies or sports teams to ransom to pay huge salaries?

How does your position about employers not being allowed to consider "Factors they can't even know about under normal circumstances without invading the privacy of the individual." deal with testing for illegal drugs? Surely that involves every bit as much coercion as being tested for nicotine smoke?

When do I lose MY rights as an employer? If I need a plumbing job done in my house, surely I can choose any plumber I want and use any criteria I want in choosing which of the plumbers listed in my local telephone directory I want to use?

 

[shanek]

And that gives him the right to dictate the personal behavior of his employees and piss on their constutiional rights. Gotcha.

The Constitution DOES NOT APPLY TO BUSINESSES. It DOES NOT APPLY TO INDIVIDUALS. It only applies to GOVERNMENT.

No weaseling, it's a legitimate answer to your question.

No, it isn't. It was a complete evasion.

LOL, you gonna stop me? I'll talk about whatever I want.

I reserve the right to kick you out for doing so. It's my property, my rules.

Nope, here is where your ideology breaks down. It is demonstrably not "your house, your rules". You cannot force people to have sex in your house. You cannot rob people in your house. This attitude is the sign of a tyrant and completely unfounded.

Total and complete weaseling. Those actions are committed against a person, not on a piece of property. Just as I own my house, they own their bodies, and so I cannot do those things no matter whose property I'm on. Just another example of how desperate you've become.

No, I'm not. You're lying. I've never said the employer can't do things away from work the employee can do.

Yes, you have. Your entire argument is exactly that. Denying it just makes you look foolish.

 

[shanek]

IF they believe in what they're doing, and IF they want the company to succeed. That's a big IF and not an employee trait I normally ascribe to employees.

Then I can only conclude you haven't been paying attention.

 

[shanek]

The relevant question being, how intrusive can the company be in enforcing its rules before their actions become illegal?

As soon as they intrude on your property without your consent. You have every right to refuse to do that. But they also have every right to fire you, just as you have every right to quit.

 

[shanek]

I'll wait to see Shane's response, but I would suspect that wiretapping by anyone, is probably pretty anti-libertarian..

Yes, it is. I really don't understand how your phone isn't your property.

 

[shanek]

I would suspect that too. So I wonder why drawing someone's blood who doesn't want it drawn is okey-dokey.

They are voluntarily agreeing to have their blood drawn. That's the difference. No one's strapping them to the table and forcing them.

 

[shanek]

Now, would I advocate protecting the rights of the employer when the employee has the upper hand in negotiations? Of course. Government's job is to protect the rights of it's citizens regardless of whether those citizens are employees or employers. What would I recommend? I have no idea because I can't think of a scenario. If you have a real world scenario where you believe the rights of an employer were violated by an employee in a strong bargaining position you should start a thread on it and it can be hashed out.

But you've already acknowledged that these things go in cycles. So now we're left with the absurdity of some laws being in place at one time and other laws being in place other times, and the government having to decide which laws apply at which times.