You smoke? You're fired!

[username]

Not, because the conditions are illegal..



( I know ( strongly suspect ) you are not really this stupid. )

Actually I do not believe those conditions are illegal. Someone, several pages back (I think it was CrimeResearch, could be wrong) posted court cases where the courts upheld the legal right of the employer. One case was firing an employee who refused to vote as the employer wished.

The mandatory sex would only be illegal if it was considered prostitution and prostitution was illegal. Don't know if this would be considered prostitution or not since it isn't a direct sex for money transaction, but in case it is let's pretend that the employer is in an area where prostitution is legal.

Now please answer if you support the employer being legally allowed to put such requirements upon an employee who wishes to keep his job.

 

[username]

So now rape isn't illegal either?


How did i know that you had your own definitions for that too?

Rape? Mandatory sex as part of the employment contract for continuing employment is consentual and not coerced according to the arguments here.

Rape implies coercion or physical force. None of that in this case according to Shane, Dio and CR's reasoning.

 

[crimresearch]

Which is why you are reduced to lying about what is being said. Rape is a crime, and firing someone for smoking is not...

The element of force is missing according to the courts.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Actually I do not believe those conditions are illegal. Someone, several pages back (I think it was CrimeResearch, could be wrong) posted court cases where the courts upheld the legal right of the employer. One case was firing an employee who refused to vote as the employer wished.

The mandatory sex would only be illegal if it was considered prostitution and prostitution was illegal. Don't know if this would be considered prostitution or not since it isn't a direct sex for money transaction, but in case it is let's pretend that the employer is in an area where prostitution is legal.

Now please answer if you support the employer being legally allowed to put such requirements upon an employee who wishes to keep his job.

No I would not support such an employer, whether it was legal or not.

I'm sure this will come as a shock to you, but I have never said I supported the employer in the smoking case. I believe he was within his rights though.

( If we are going to pretend, we can make up anything we want, and always be right..
Let's not do that ..)

 

[Snide]

Or just someone who's enough of an individualist to be able to understand what's best for me and stand up for it. I mean, I'm including things like clerking at Burger King here.

Somehow, I get the idea you've gone against the grain throughout most of your life.

I once negotiated a $3.35/hr. starting pay as a movie theatre usher when they were going to pay me $3.02. Minimum was $3.35, but they said if you were under 18 and in school, it was $3.02. I was out of high school and just turned 17...so I talked them into the $3.35 (even though according to their own language/interpretation of the law, they had to give it to me)

Anyway, I'm sure even BK allows for some negotiation, but I doubt a non-smoking policy would be negotiable.

And I know that you know that unwritten contracts can be severed by any party at any time.

Well, not really, but yes, at will employment contracts certainly can be, which I know Tony doesn't like.

And by "can," if you mean either party has the "power" but not necesarily the "right," then I certainly agree. Geez, now I'm playing the semantics card!!

I would be powerless to stop him from doing so.

Well, for the sake of the points being raised by those who don't like the non-smoking policy, you certainly would have the power...by saying, "Sorry, not-negotiable."

That just says that there are certain aspects of the agreement that are more flexible than others. They may have no problem with you coming in an hour later and working an hour later, but they may have a big problem with you working in the nude.

It goes the other way, too. You may prefer to come in at 9am instead of 8am, but the condition that you sit on a chair made of 10-penny nails would be more unacceptable to you.

Now why would anyone have a problem with me coming to work in the nude?

Anyway, of course there are certain aspects that are more flexible. But when one of the absolutely inflexible aspect is a non-smoking policy, with random urine tests to boot, it's a moral abuse of power on the company's part to utilize their superior negotiation position.

Not that it should be illegal or actionable, I'm just saying, and I thought you agreed some point ago, that it is rotten.

But no one on either side of this issue of whether it should be actionable, or made actionable, has (IMO) done a persuasive job in convincing me either way. Although I tend to lean on the side of saying it should not.

 

[username]

Which is why you are reduced to lying about what is being said. Rape is a crime, and firing someone for smoking is not...

The element of force is missing according to the courts.

What?

Nobody is talking about rape. We are talking about a consentual, non coerced employment contract that requires mandatory sex.

As you said, the courts say there is no force/coercion in the employee/employer employment contract negotiation.

If there is no coercion then it isn't possible for the sex to be rape.

Again, please answer the question whether you personally support the employer's right to include mandating sex or how one votes as a condition of continued employment. Keep in mind the courts already ruled that the employer can fire those who do not vote as demanded according to what you(pretty sure it was you or Dio) posted several pages back.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Which is why you are reduced to lying about what is being said. Rape is a crime, and firing someone for smoking is not...

The element of force is missing according to the courts.

I just realized where our protagonists are falling short in their ' sex ' and ' voting ' analogies..

They are acting as if the requirement for employment was that they had to smoke..

Boss:

" In order to keep your job you are going to have to give up the off the job sex we have been engaging in,, "

Employee:

" Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... No fair..


Boss:

" It's not so bad really. We'll taper it off gradually over the next 18 months.. "

 

[username]

No I would not support such an employer, whether it was legal or not.

I'm sure this will come as a shock to you, but I have never said I supported the employer in the smoking case. I believe he was within his rights though.

I understand that. This may come as a shock to you, but I agree the employer has the legal right to fire the smokers. It has never been my position that the employer broke the law.

It has been my position that employers should not have the legal right to fire people for reasons that are unrelated to job performance that require the employee to give up his privacy rights. In other words fire people if they smoke on the job, but not if they smoke at home.

( If we are going to pretend, we can make up anything we want, and always be right..
Let's not do that ..)

Since prostitution isn't universally illegal and there are many who support legalizing it in the US I don't see pretending it is legal for our example as being much of a stretch.

My point in this thread has been to point out that employees do not agree to quit smoking just because their employer wants them to. They do so only when their employer uses coercion and the employee considers quitting smoking as the least of the evils.

That is why I use the examples of voting and sex, it seems those who support the right of the employer to fire smokers don't support the right of the employer to fire those who don't vote as required or who won't agree to provide sexual favors.

The fact that when I mentioned sexual favors there was an immediate "That would be rape" is quite telling. It would seem that all of the sudden those persons saw coercion in the same place they didn't see coercion when we were tallking about smokers.

Odd.

 

[crimresearch]

"We are talking about a consentual, non coerced employment contract that requires mandatory sex..."

Since the courts and legislatures have ruled that prostitution is illegal, then your scenario is a dishonest attempt to rationalize rape, by pretending that it is no different than any other condition of employment.

If you are functioning in an alternate reality that looks just like the USA in every respect except for legalizing prostitution, then yes, a hypothetical person who *asked* if they could please have a hypothetical job being paid for sex, could also be fired for refusing to honor that hypothetical contract.
And anyone who didn't want to work where prostitution was a legal condition of employment could try to a different line of work.

Hypothetically of course.

 

[crimresearch]

The fact that when I mentioned sexual favors there was an immediate "That would be rape" is quite telling. It would seem that all of the sudden those persons saw coercion in the same place they didn't see coercion when we were tallking about smokers.

Quite telling....that you refuse to admit that sex for pay is a criminal act under US law, while 'not smoking' for pay isn't.

Quite telling that you use this blind spot to rationanilze that illegally forcing someone to have sex isn't really rape.

 

[username]

I just realized where our protagonists are falling short in their ' sex ' and ' voting ' analogies..

They are acting as if the requirement for employment was that they had to smoke..

What is the difference? I don't see the significance.

However, let's change it to make things better for you. The employer says that the employee may not engage in any sexual activity in their private time and must submit to testing to ensure sexual activity isn't taking place.

The employer tells the employee they are no longer allowed to vote at all.

You can deal with either set of examples as you prefer. Should this be something the employer can legally fire somene for not agreeing to or should employees be protected against these sorts of demands?

 

[username]

Quite telling that you use this blind spot to rationanilze that illegally forcing someone to have sex isn't really rape. ]

What *force*????????

You said that employment contracts were consentual. If you consider my example to be prostitution that is fine. It would then be illegal. Prostitution != rape But where is the force involved? You just got done saying there is no force involved in an employment contract.

 

[Tony]

What *force*????????

You said that employment contracts were consentual. If you consider my example to be prostitution that is fine. It would then be illegal. Prostitution != rape But where is the force involved? You just got done saying there is no force involved in an employment contract.

He's being duplicitous. If the employer says, "stop smoking or lose your job" no coercion or force is involved. But if the employer says " have sex with me or lose your job" coercion and/or force is involved.

After all, both are conditions of employment. Don’t like it? Work somewhere else.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

What is the difference? I don't see the significance.

However, let's change it to make things better for you. The employer says that the employee may not engage in any sexual activity in their private time and must submit to testing to ensure sexual activity isn't taking place.

The employer tells the employee they are no longer allowed to vote at all.

You can deal with either set of examples as you prefer. Should this be something the employer can legally fire somene for not agreeing to or should employees be protected against these sorts of demands?

Will you stop making stuff up.. It doesn't support your position.. It's called a ' straw man '...

There are countless things in my opinion, that an employer should not be able to require their employees to do..

It doesn't have anything to do with this discussion..


I do not have a problem with an employer having a non-smoking work force.. That includes off the job. If I smoked, I wouldn't seek employment there...

I don't agree with the way the non complying employees were handled in this case..


You never answered my question.. Do you smoke ?

 

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by crimresearch
That may be the way it works in Woowooland,
but that isn't the way it works in the United States,
under existing labor law.

Positively stumped. It is so defined as not to be an agreement.
One side dictates the terms the other merely accepts them. Hm.
I need a different word for it then. The word as used will confuse.

Perhaps this explains the mystery of the union retirees who in
good faith negotiated with companies for health care in their
retirement for lower wages and then the companies simply
just dropped them after a few years.

A contract isn't worth the paper it is printed on...

 

[Tony]

More Black's Law, this time defining coercion: "compelling by force or arms or threat." How does that apply here?

That a bogus defintion designed and employed to validate your reasoning. I reject it.

Main Entry: co·erce
Pronunciation: kO-'&rs
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): co·erced; co·erc·ing
Etymology: Latin coercEre, from co- + arcEre to shut up, enclose -- more at ARK
1 : to restrain or dominate by force <religion in the past has tried to coerce the irreligious -- W. R. Inge>
2 : to compel to an act or choice
3 : to bring about by force or threat <coerce the compliance of the rest of the community -- Scott Buchanan>

 

[Tony]

Will you stop making stuff up.. It doesn't support your position.. It's called a ' straw man '...

No it's not. He is spot on.

There are countless things in my opinion, that an employer should not be able to require their employees to do...

Like what?

It doesn't have anything to do with this discussion..

It has everything to do with this discussion. If an employer can make X a condition of employment because he own the company, he can also make Y a condition of employment on those same grounds.

I do not have a problem with an employer having a non-smoking work force.. That includes off the job.

That's your problem, you don't respect the personal rights of others. I see no reason why rights should subject to the whims of a person simply because that person owns the company your work for.

 

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Sounds great, if you can get your boss to agree to it. You would have legal grounds to take your (ex)boss to court if they violated the contract.

Now, what does it have to do with the situation in this thread?

There's that sensation that I'm missing something blazingly obvious.
Did they sign an agreement to be employed there, or did they just
walk in and start working?

 

[shanek]

Well, for the sake of the points being raised by those who don't like the non-smoking policy, you certainly would have the power...by saying, "Sorry, not-negotiable."

He could insist on negotiating anyway. It all depends on how badly I want the policy, and how badly he doesn't want it. If we're both too unmoving, then there will be no employment agreement. If either of us acquiesces, or if we compromise somewhere in the middle, an agreement will be made.

Anyway, of course there are certain aspects that are more flexible. But when one of the absolutely inflexible aspect is a non-smoking policy, with random urine tests to boot, it's a moral abuse of power on the company's part to utilize their superior negotiation position.[/qutoe]

Why? What's the difference?

Not that it should be illegal or actionable, I'm just saying, and I thought you agreed some point ago, that it is rotten.

Yes, it's rotten. But I don't have to work there, and I don't have to buy their products. There's no coercion involved, which is the point in dispute.

 

[shanek]

Nobody is talking about rape. We are talking about a consentual, non coerced employment contract that requires mandatory sex.

It's called "prostitution." And even though it's not legal, it should be.

But that doesn't mean that the propositioning of someone can't be damaging, and therefore actionable civilly. But that's outside of the employment agreement.

It's like if the boss suddenly decides to whack everyone on the head with a 2x4 every 24.3 minutes. "New policy, everyone!" >WHACK!< "Whoever doesn't like it can quit!" >WHACK!< But since damage has been done outside of the employment agreement, the employees so whacked can sue the boss for assault.