bigred said:
And this brings up a point I often see ignored or not understood in general: freedoms are not absolute. As it relates to this thread, employers are not free to hire, fire, or ignore anyone, ie on any whim they desire. Race, gender, and age are the most obvious examples, but are not (or should not be) the only ones.
As this dangerous and erroneous conclusion seems to be pervasive in this thread, I think it would be good to go over the difference between a right and a privilege.
A right is something you can do without permission. You can do it without permission because it does not affect the person or property of others.
A privilege is something you need permission to do, as it involves intruding on the person or property of others.
So, above I mentioned that I can invite you into my home, but you can't break in. That's because my home is my property, and so you entering my home is a privilege, not a right. You need permission. But a privilege can be revoked any time; I can kick you out whenever I want.
In a business transaction, we have two (or more) players essentially exchanging privileges. You don't have a right to take money from my pocket, because my money is my property, but I have the right to give it to you. You getting my money is a privilege. I don't have a right to take your property, but you have the right to give it to me. Me getting your property is a privilege. So we can both agree that I will give you a certain amount of money in exchange for a certain amount of your property. But if we don't reach an agreement, no such transaction takes place.
In this case, we have an employee's body (and everything that goes with it: the ability to think, to labor, to type, to speak, to sell, whatever), which is his property, and we have Weyco's money and resources, which is their property. Employment is an economic transaction. If I'm employed, then I'm giving my employer some of my property: the portion of my body and mind that we agree on. In return, I'm given some of the employer's property, which consists not only of the wages and benefits I get, but also the use of a portion of their office space, computers, Post-It notes, etc.
So, by taking the job, I'm giving my employer privileges over my body. I agree, for example, that my physical body will be in their building from 8am to 5pm. But I don't
have to show up. I can decide not to show up if I want. But, of course, if I don't, they'll most likely fire me.
Either side can terminate the agreement whenever they want. I can up and quit for no reason, or they can up and fire me for no reason. I can up and quit because they have no right to my property, even the portion of it I've agreed to let them use. They can up and fire me because I have no right to their property, even the portion of it they've agreed to let me use. These are privileges, not rights.
So, just as they can demand that I show up from 8 to 5, or even demand that I come into work next Saturday, they can demand that I submit to a drug test to see if I've been smoking. But I don't have to comply. If I don't, they'll most likely fire me, but that's because I don't have a right to their job.
It works the other way, too. I can go and demand a raise. But the company doesn't have to comply. If they don't, I can quit if I want, but that's because they don't have a right to my labor.
Once you understand this, you see why the argument that employers have an advantage is a red herring. Having an advantage over someone doesn't mean they have a right to your property. That's just plain Marxist Socialism.
