You smoke? You're fired!

shanek said:
I don't see it as a false analogy at all. When a lot of people play Monopoly, they put the tax money into Free Parking and whoever lands on that square gets it. That's nowhere to be found in the official rules anywhere. It's just something a lot of people do. And that's okay, as long as all of the players voluntarily agree to do it. Anyone who doesn't like it can either persuade the other players that the rule is stupid, or they can go play Monopoly with someone else. That rule is by no means forced upon them. Same thing here.

It's still a false analogy, you just replaced his ball game with monopoly.

To put it another way, NOTHING outside the game of monopoly (smoking, sex, drinking coke, wiping your ass with your left hand) could be considered to be a matter of playing the game, therefore, making rules against such as a rule of the game would be absurd. That's exactly what this guy is doing. He making rules that have absolutely no relation to the playability or function of the game.
 
shanek said:

Explaining it would be a waste of time, you've shown a complete refusal to think for yourself and outside the box of your ideals.

Yes, there is. You're just pretending otherwise because you're advocating taking choice away.

LOL You're getting dumber.
 
username said:
Suicide (consentual death) is illegal, but consentual sex is not. Since those who argue it is OK for employers to fire employees who do not consent to their demands, no matter how unreasonable or unrelated to their job duties those demands are it would seem perfectly acceptable to require blow jobs from employees.

If the employee gives blow jobs to hold on to their job they are 'consenting' therefore it is consentual sex and not illegal.

As best I can tell I am accurately representing the argument of those who are justifying firing employees who smoke off company property and on their own time. If requiring employees to not smoke on their own time and requiring them to vote as the employer directs are OK, then why not free blow jobs for the upper management?

If I am misunderstanding the position, please clarify your position.

"The crime of rape (or "first-degree sexual assault" in some states) generally refers to non-consensual sexual intercourse that is committed by physical force, threat of injury, or other duress."
http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/rape.html

You have clarified *your* position perfectly. In your mind, rape is on a par with a 'No Smoking ' rule.
 
crimresearch said:
"The crime of rape (or "first-degree sexual assault" in some states) generally refers to non-consensual sexual intercourse that is committed by physical force, threat of injury, or other duress."
http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/rape.html

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=597

duress
n. the use of force, false imprisonment or threats (and possibly psychological torture or "brainwashing") to compel someone to act contrary to his/her wishes or interests. If duress is used to get someone to sign an agreement or execute a will, a court may find the document null and void. A defendant in a criminal prosecution may raise the defense that others used duress to force him/her to take part in an alleged crime. The most famous case is that of publishing heiress Patty Hearst, who was kidnapped, raped, imprisoned and psychologically tortured until she joined her captors in a bank holdup and issued statements justifying her actions. She was later convicted of the bank robbery, but was eventually pardoned by President Jimmy Carter.

No such thing here. If we were to define this situation (the situation in the thread, I mean, the one with the company with the no smoking rule; not the rape) as duress, then duress would include this:

Person 1: Let's sign this contract.
Person 2: Wait a minute—this contract says you get to drive my car three times a week. I don't want that!
Person 1: Well, if you don't want that, then I guess we don't have an agreement and won't make this contract. Good day.

So, has Person 1 comitted duress? No! It would only be duress if he had threatened Person 2 with some kind of harm if he refused to sign. It doesn't have anything to do with the conditions of the contract. Otherwise, any condition would be considered "duress."
 
username said:
Well then please explain your logic. You have defended the right of the employer to fire an employee refusing to vote according to the wishes of the employer as well as the right of the employer to fire employees who smoke on their own time.

You must have me confused with someone else while ignoring everything I say.. I have never addressed a voting issue. I have supported the right of an employer to set conditions for employment, which in this case has to do with smoking.

Please explain your logic that supports these demands from the employer, but that doesn't support any other demand? Why not support mandatory blow jobs? How does this differ according to your logic than mandating how one votes or whether one smokes at home?
Are you really so dense? Do you not understand the difference between voting, smoking and performing fellatio? Never mind, I suspect that you don't.. I bet you are real popular around election time...


When did you stop beating your wife?
 
shanek said:
No such thing here.

Umm. That's exactly what's happening here.

duress
n. the use of force, false imprisonment or threats (and possibly psychological torture or "brainwashing") to compel someone to act contrary to his/her wishes or interests.

Employer: You really need to quit smoking, I don't like it.
Employee: I know it's bad for me, but I enjoy it, besides, it's my right.
Employer: Quit smoking or you're fired.

So here we have someone being compelled to act against their interests (quit smoking, giving up freedom) by another person using a threat (termination).
 
Tony said:
So here we have someone being compelled to act against their interests (quit smoking, giving up freedom) by another person using a threat (termination).

Okay, then, any condition of any contract ever is duress. Great. Wonderful.

Idiot.
 
shanek said:
Okay, then, any condition of any contract ever is duress. Great. Wonderful.

Idiot.


Translation: (woe is me) I don't like how my position has been shown to be tyrannical so I'm just going to make non-sequitors and ad homs.
 
Tony said:
Translation: (woe is me) I don't like how my position has been shown to be tyrannical so I'm just going to make non-sequitors and ad homs.

There is an agreement between employer and employee that the employee will not smoke, even on his own time. There is an agreement that the employee will take a drug test to confirm this. The condition of a violation of this agreement is termination of employment.

Just as the condition of a violation of any terms of a contract is termination of the contract. TERMINATION OF THE CONTRACT IS NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM DURESS.

You're desperate. You're pathetic. And now all you can do is personal attacks.
 
Tony said:
He making rules that have absolutely no relation to the playability or function of the game.
Wrong!

Employees who smoke, present a burden to the cost of doing business ( the ' game ' we are discussing ) and is unfair to employees who don't smoke ( the ones who follow the rules )...
 
shanek said:
There is an agreement between employer and employee that the employee will not smoke, even on his own time.

No there's not. It's a demand the employer makes and if the employee doesn't give in he can **** off.

There is an agreement that the employee will take a drug test to confirm this. The condition of a violation of this agreement is termination of employment.

No, it's a demand and a decree by the employer.

Just as the condition of a violation of any terms of a contract is termination of the contract. TERMINATION OF THE CONTRACT IS NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM DURESS.

I never said termination of the contract is a form of duress. The threat of it is when it's used to compell behavior against the employee's interests.

You're desperate. You're pathetic. And now all you can do is personal attacks.

:v:

It's good to know you think business owners could legally and morally include sex as a term of employment.
 
Tony said:
No there's not. It's a demand the employer makes and if the employee doesn't give in he can **** off.

An employer has a job to offer.
An employee has labor to offer.
They have to get to gether and AGREE on the terms of the arrangement. No agreement, no employment.

You have no cause whatsoever to try and paint this as duress.

No, it's a demand and a decree by the employer.

It's a condition of the agreement. If the condition isn't met, then there is no agreement.

I never said termination of the contract is a form of duress.

Yes, you did! Absolutely you did! That is exactly what you are saying! You're just caught, you've lost, and you're trying to weasel out of it.
 
Diogenes said:
Wrong!

Employees who smoke, present a burden to the cost of doing business ( the ' game ' we are discussing ) and is unfair to employees who don't smoke ( the ones who follow the rules )...

This is a lie that you're regurgitating.

From the other thread (LadyHawk):

Good point, Joshua, however, here's a little more data on the whole topic....

I personally knew Howard Weyers (President of Weyco). Weyco isn't a "health care firm". They're a third party administrator; that is, they process medical claims for self funding employers. They don't have health care providers or clinics or anything of the sort.

I can tell you that Mr. Weyers is a hard working, personable guy...and that the real reason behind this whole not smoking thing has very little to do with looking out for his employees' health. What it does have a lot more to do with it is the fact that Howard's father (or was it his uncle?) died of lung cancer from smoking and he's had a hard-on for the tobacco companies and smokers ever since. He mentioned this to me and several others on many an occasion...years ago. I knew several months ago that he was planning to do this.

True, he's given employees 18 months to comply. Problem is, he's lost 4 talented individuals over his decision. Further, he's not determined how he's going to handle employees' who are exposed to 2nd hand smoke from friends, relatives, etc. He has also stated that he has no intention (currently) to go after those who drink to excess unless they're drunk at work.

In short, the "I'm doing this to improve my employees' health and lower health care premiums' is a smoke screen. Howard just doesn't like smokers. Period.

I'm a reformed smoker but I have a problem with Howard's tact. He's basically changed the rules on his employees. It doesn't seem fair to suddenly come to work one day and find out that your job is on the line for something other than your performance . This is just one of many pet peeves I have with Corporate America lately. Seems it's all about looks and being politically correct rather than attracting and keeping the best talent you can. What's sadder is that Okemos isn't exactly a burgeoning metropolis. It's about as "Green Acres" as you can get. So, to those who say that the Weyco employees have the "choice" to go somewhere else, rest assured...they don't.

More from LadyHawk:

Ok. Forgive me, but this is going to be a little lengthy. I've been in the health care industry for over 2o years. Time for a little Insurance 101 training here.

First off, most employee benefit enrollment forms don't even ask if a person smokes. And, it doesn't matter if it does, because most people lie about their smoking, anyway. Ok? So, how does an insurance company determine what the employer's insurance premium payment should be? There are several factors, two of the most important of which are: demographics and actual experience.

To wit: if an employer has 100 employees, 50% of whom smoke, their premium will be raised based on a.) the likelihood that a %age of those 50% will develop lung cancer or other respiratory diseases and b.) the actual number ($ amount) of claims filed by the employer's personnel over the last benefit year....regardless of the condition behind the claim. With me so far? Ok...

So, in summary, an employer pays increased premiums based on the actual claims submitted by its employees (claims experience) than on what a given subset of individuals within the employee base does. That's why actuaries have jobs, folks. If employees quit smoking, they may not develop lung cancer or other respiratory diseases. But, if the remaining population delivers a lot of premature babies, or experiences heart attacks, then the health insurance premium is still going to increase.

Please don't misunderstand me, here. Having quit smoking myself some years ago, I would be the first to tell anyone the benefits of quitting. BUT....I was successful only because I was ready and willing to quit. Mandates from friends and close family had not been successful and only left me resentful and spiteful.

If we hand over the reins to employers to be the moral compass of each of us, look out! How far will we be from having employers mandate other behaviors outside of work? Think about it.

Ah, but that it were that easy! See, you can't segregate a group within a group and charge them a different rate than the rest of the group. Why? Because the employer already gets a "group discount" from the insurer.

Insurers are in place to bear risk. Risk is the name of the game. Now, one can certainly attempt to lower risk in an effort to lower premiums and many employers are trying to do this in a more motivational and educational way. But, you must understand that there is no guarantee that the premium will decrease. You can get every employee to quit smoking and still pay a rate hike and the hike will have nothing to do smoking. The employer may not have had a single claim submitted related to lung disease and still pay a substantial increase due to one AIDS or premature birth claim....what do you do? Charge the increased premium to the AIDS victim or the mother?
 
Tony said:
Yes, that is exactly what happened.

Read the article:

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

So, are you just ignoring the part that says they "left their jobs voluntarily"? Did you miss the part where it said that it was to "keep health costs down" and therefore your claim that it has nothing to do with the employment is bogus? And what about the other article I linked to saying that they were given 15 months notice and assistance in finding another job?
 
Diogenes said:
Are you really so dense?
When did you stop beating your wife?

Very well, since you won't discuss things either, but just want to insult I am done with you as well as CrimeResearch.
 
This is the same Tony who claimed to have not mentioned the courts in this thread...what else do you expect?

:rolleyes:

These folks aren't engaging in discourse, they are just engaging in sophistry.
 
shanek said:
You're desperate. You're pathetic. And now all you can do is personal attacks.

Okay, then, any condition of any contract ever is duress. Great. Wonderful.

Idiot.

Well now that makes yourself, D and CR the ones who have resorted to insults.

Have a nice day gentlemen. No point in trying to discuss anything with any of you it appears.

Shane I have defended you as a reasonable and civil guy in the past. I will no longer be doing that.
 
Tony said:


It's good to know you think business owners could legally and morally include sex as a term of employment.
Why can't you and Usename deal with the issue at hand, instead of introducing sex, voting and wiretapping?


Make a good court case for the smokers to get their Job back, without the strawmen and slippery slopes...

Remember, the future of these smokers and their families are in your hands..
 

Back
Top Bottom