You smoke? You're fired!

[Skeptical Greg]

Please explain where my statement is wrong.

Not wrong, just fallacious..


Slippery Slope

 

[username]

Not wrong, just fallacious..


Slippery Slope

Thank you agreeing that my argument wasn't wrong. Too often people will call an argument logically fallacious (even when it isn't) in order to avoid showing why it is wrong.

In your case you haven't done this.

 

[shanek]

The problem is that while we are waiting for the market to take corrective action people have lost their jobs for a reason that is not at all related to any legitimate business of the employer.

But the other problem is that if you try to use force to fix that problem, you create other problems that do have adverse effects in the long run.

I don't consider that reasonable as nobody, employer or otherwise, has any legitimate right to control how one votes.

But again, that's not what's happening. What's happening is that the employer is basing his decision on whether or not to continue to employ the worker based on how he votes.

I think the employee's right to privacy trumps the employer's right to hire/fire at will in these cases.

But no actual privacy violation is taking place. The employee decides for himself whether or not to allow the employer to do this, and the employer decides for himself whether or not to continue the employment based on the employee's response. Again, what you're talking about is not equal rights. You're talking about using force to inhibit the employer's rights because you perceive the employee to be at a disadvantage.

The whole assumption that employers usually have the upper hand is the basis for Marxist Socialism.

I agree, there may be some employees in some sectors that have the upper hand while the reverse is true in other sectors, but you keep looking at this in a macro sense while I am looking at it in a micro sense.

Because the government policies are going to have their effect in the macro sense.

I agree government regulation can have perverse consequences. However what other option is their for the employee fired for smoking on his own time?

Working elsewhere, starting his own business, seeking out other financial options...there are alternatives.

One of which is to get public opinion on his side and use market forces to shame the company into reversing its policy and taking him back.

The fact that people continue to shop at Walmart demonstrates that people are about price over principle so I don't see any help for the fired employees other than government regulation.

WTF does Wal-Mart have to do with anything?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Thank you agreeing that my argument wasn't wrong. Too often people will call an argument logically fallacious (even when it isn't) in order to avoid showing why it is wrong.

In your case you haven't done this.

How long has the ' no smoking ' agreement been in place?


What other outragious restrictions has this company forced on it's employees, based on the success of this one?


You are wrong so far ..


Agreed, you might be right someday.. Great topic for a new thread when it happens..

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The fact the employees working for a company who presumably were good workers have been fired for smoking on their own time makes my argument.

No it doesn't..

They weren't fired for smoking on their own time.

They were fired for smoking after they agreed not to.

They were receiving benefits ( including continued employment ) based on their agreement not to smoke.

Their behaviour was fraudulent. Something I'm sure you wouldn't tolerate from their employer.

 

[shanek]

Amazing that most of the other stories I've found were based on that one USA Today story. But I did find this John Stossel report:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Stossel20050420.shtml

Weyers gave his employees 15 months to quit smoking, and he offered assistance to help.

15 months warning, and assistance, and they still couldn't find another job??? What kind of losers are we talking about here?

 

[username]

wow, so now the two of you label the fired employees liars and losers.

Look, your ideology is indefensible in my opinion, at least in this case. Your having to resort to insulting those fired for the crime of smoking on their own time, in my opinion, proves that your position is indefensible.

As said previously, there is no point in continuing this discussion. You haven't convinced me of your argument and I haven't convinced you of mine and other than the two of you resorting to insulting those who got fired nothing new has been said.

Nuff said.

 

[shanek]

wow, so now the two of you label the fired employees liars and losers.

15 months, with assistance, and you still can't find a job? I'd call that a loser. In fact, I've known many people I'd call losers who have found a job in a tiny fraction of that amount of time.

15 months is more than reasonable. In fact, if they gave you 15 months notice before firing you, I'd say you have NO business complaining.

 

[username]

15 months, with assistance, and you still can't find a job? I'd call that a loser. In fact, I've known many people I'd call losers who have found a job in a tiny fraction of that amount of time.

15 months is more than reasonable. In fact, if they gave you 15 months notice before firing you, I'd say you have NO business complaining.

That they didn't or couldn't or wouldn't find other jobs isn't the issue from my point of view. That they had to choose between not smoking on their own time or find another job is.

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.

There is also the case of the employee who got fired for not voting as the employer dictated. Who cares how long the employee is given to comply, the demand itself is unreasonable and imo, ought to be illegal.

Again, you aren't going to change my mind on this unless you have a new argument to make as I have already considered your existing arguments and I am not persuaded. I have nothing new to add and haven't persuaded you, so what is the point in continuing?

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

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Why can't you address the fraudulent behaviour of the employees?

Why can't you show how the no smoking agreement led to no limits on what an employer can impose on their employees?

Bye!

 

[username]

Why can't you address the fraudulent behaviour of the employees?

What fraudulent behavior? An employer said 'quit smoking on your own, unpaid time or we fire you.' Some didn't quit and were fired. Where is the fraud? If the employer doesn't have the right to dictate what the employee does when not being paid by the employer (my position) there is no fraud in not complying with the employer's demands.

Why can't you show how the no smoking agreement led to no limits on what an employer can impose on their employees?

Bye!

Why would you even ask such a question? First, there hasn't been enough time that has passed to determine what, if any, other absurd demands these employers will make. Second, it has already been cited by another in this thread (perhaps by you???) that an employee was fired for not voting as instructed by his employer.

That there are employers firing people for absurd things not at all related to the employer's business is the point.

Apparently your position is to belittle the employee and champion the rights of the employer. That is your right, but yours is a bandwagon I won't be jumping on anytime soon.

 

[CFLarsen]

15 months, with assistance, and you still can't find a job? I'd call that a loser. In fact, I've known many people I'd call losers who have found a job in a tiny fraction of that amount of time.

People that shanek calls "losers".

 

[Snide]

The whole assumption that employers usually have the upper hand is the basis for Marxist Socialism.

That doesn't make it a false assumption, however.

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. I use quotes because as everyone's aware, the contracts are predominantly pre-written by the company.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

What , no pics from Auschwitz ?

Way to trash the thread Claus..

If you can't do it with evidence and logic, serve up a little ad hom..

 

[CFLarsen]

What , no pics from Auschwitz ?

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

Way to trash the thread Claus..

If you can't do it with evidence and logic, serve up a little ad hom..

I am pointing out that shanek's argument is as heartless as they come. When I hear something like that, I don't let it pass. It's an outrageous comment to make.

 

[Thanz]

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

Generally speaking, an employee is expected to give some minimal notice, but I have never seen an employee get sued for not giving adequate notice. Part of the reason is that you cannot force anyone to work for you - a court will not award specific performance for a contract for personal services.

So, yes, it is pretty one sided.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

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..

I am pointing out that shanek's argument is as heartless as they come. When I hear something like that, I don't let it pass. It's an outrageous comment to make.

You have no evidence that Shane is heartless...

However we have ample evidence of your heartless bashing of woos.. Your post was ad hom.. Nothing more.


Can you prove those kids in the garbage dump were un-employed, actively seeking employment or that they were fired for smoking?

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

There is no indication that the woman in your picture is looking for employment..


Thanks for keeping us on our compassionate toes..

 

[CFLarsen]

You have no evidence that Shane is heartless...

It is my opinion. However, it is backed with plenty of posts of his.

Can you prove those kids in the garbage dump were un-employed, actively seeking employment or that they were fired for smoking?

I trust you are being facetious. I hope you are not suggesting that they prefer to root the dumps to a job.

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

Absolutely not. They are very much on the mark.

There is no indication that the woman in your picture is looking for employment..

Again, I trust you are being facetious, for the same reason as above.

Thanks for keeping us on our compassionate toes..

You're welcome.

 

[Tony]

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.

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

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

Strawman.

Can the weaseling; no one's being robbed here.

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

But if you come into my house, you will not smoke or do drugs

I would never smoke in someone's house if they didn't want me too.

you will not talk sports

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

and you will not juggle open umbrellas.

Ok.

You don't like it, there's the door. My house, 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.

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

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

 

[Tony]

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.

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. I think workers should care about a company as much as the company cares about them.

Is this really such a foreign concept for you?

Not really, I'm just not laboring under the illusion that this is how it is all, or most of the time. Unless you have some evidence that most American workers hold their place of employment in that esteem?