You smoke? You're fired!

[Skeptical Greg]

Shanek:

• There is an agreement between employer and employee that the employee will provide sexual favors on demand, even on his own time. The condition of a violation of this agreement is termination of employment.
• There is an agreement between employer and employee that the employee will vote only for republicans. There is an agreement that the employee will take a the employer into the voting booth to confirm this. The condition of a violation of this agreement is termination of employment.

Would you assert the employer is within his rights for the above two conditions as well? If not, why not?

Not, because the conditions are illegal..



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

 

[Earthborn]

No, because "allow" implies they have the legitimate authority to stop me.

I don't think that implies it at all. I could be wrong, English is not my first language after all. But I have come to expect that you usually use the most non-standard definitions of words, not me.

They don't.

Your opinion is noted. 'They' disagree.

Our Constitution doesn't.

I refer you to this thread for some interesting comments about the relevance of the Constitution and specifically the Libertarian interpretation of it.

But as of now, government has done nothing whatsoever about this situation.

Creating a system of law that protects people against contracts made under duress is hardly nothing, I think.

So again, I ask, where's the coercion?

Do you expect me to answer that when I have repeatedly said that there isn't? Or are you asking someone else?

Then I don't see the relevance of bringing up coercion with regards to this thread.

The relevance lies in the fact that it is the government that makes and protects contract law to protect people from coercion.

As such it is the government that defines what a legal contract is and what it isn't. If the government decides that discrimination against smokers cannot be part of a legal contract, then such contract is not legal.

 

[Snide]

It comes from that rather lengthy descriptive post that I made above which no one has responded to or, apparently, even read.

I got that. I was probably the only one who skimmed it first and missed it. I don't think that is the key issue to all of this, though. No need to get pi$$y...you're among friends.

I have never been in such a situation in a job interview. And I've been on a lot of interviews.

Consider yourself fortunate, or extremely talented and in demand then. I would like to hear from others regarding their experiences on this particular issue. I think we have yet another semantics issue here.

Besides, no one has been able to show here that there was a contract at all. And some have acknowledged that there wasn't. So that leaves the agreement open-ended, subject to termination by either party for whatever reason they want.

Shane, I know that you know that agreements don't have to be in writing to be contracts. They just need the elements. It's hardly a stretch to presume those elements existed here. So if an employer says, "Shane, I want to offer you at will employment under the condition that you never smoke and that I can test your urine any time I choose, and will pay you $100,000 per year to start," and you agree, it's a contract. (And you better accept!! )

I have always been able to bargain whenever seeking a job. So is it that people can't do this, or just don't?

Congratulations. And since you are a small business owner, I'm sure you would let the right candidate negotiate a lot of things because he/she was worth it to you and your business. I don't doubt this happens a lot.

But to answer your question, I think it's a combination of both, usually. I know where I work, some things are negotiable, and many more if it's a high enough position. I was able to negotiate a start date and flexible hour plan, both of which were allowed as per company policy. (whoopee) But I guarantee you I wouldn't have been able to negotiate the core rules of employment...it was either sign or not take the job.

If Gaston Tech grows to 6,000 employees on one campus, maybe you'll see where I'm coming from here. (Yup...seen your site. Nice work...really!) And it's not likely that a "no smoking even in your own home" agreement is not a core rule to the companies who choose to adopt this.

 

[shanek]

Would you assert the employer is within his rights for the above two conditions as well? If not, why not?

Asked and answered.

 

[crimresearch]

They get it. They just disagree that the returning employees had a fair choice.

Using words like 'criminal' and 'sue'doesn't connote merely a belief that something is unfair. Asking what difference there is between rape and firing someone for smoking isn't adavncing a claim of unfairness.

'They' are claimng that this behavior is illegal, in spite of being shown evidence to the contrary, and in spite of requests that they prove the assertion that a crime has been committed.

 

[Snide]

Using words like 'criminal' and 'sue'doesn't connote merely a belief that something is unfair.

'They' are claimng that this behavior is illegal, in spite of being shown evidence to the contrary, and in spite of requests that they prove the assertion that a crime has been committed.

I get that. Tony says its illegal and criminal and I disagree. What I'm open to listening to are those who claim it should be cirminal/illegal. THose are the "they" I am referring to...sorry for any confusion.

 

[Solitaire]

No, there is such an agreement, as it's a condition of continued employment. Being employed there means you agree to the conditions of employment. If you don't agree, you can always seek other employment options. Or get together with your co-workers and convince your employer to change his mind.

Hm. No. Doesn't work. Imbalanced.

I reach an agreement with my boss, we sign it.
If he wants to change the agreement then we negotiate.
If we reach an agreement then we sign that; otherwise,
the old agreement stays in force.

If it worked the way then I could go tell the boss I'm changing
the agreement unilaterally and he cannot fire me for doing so.
No need for co-workers nor convincing.

P.S. You got the concept of firing your boss wrong.
It's not you quitting, but you saying to your boss, "Your Fired!"
He clears out his desk and never returns. See?

 

[crimresearch]

Quote Earthborn:
"....The relevance lies in the fact that it is the government that makes and protects contract law to protect people from coercion.

As such it is the government that defines what a legal contract is and what it isn't. If the government decides that discrimination against smokers cannot be part of a legal contract, then such contract is not legal."

And where is your evidence that the US government has reversed themeselves and suddenly declared that firing employees for smoking is illegal?

Because, quite frankly, I doubt if the workings of the government in some fantasy world are going to be of much use to this particular bunch of smokers.

 

[shanek]

I don't think that implies it at all.

Here are all the definitions from American Heritage:

1. To let do or happen; permit: We allow smoking only in restricted areas.
2. To permit the presence of: No pets are allowed inside.
3. To permit to have: allow oneself a little treat.
4. To make provision for; assign: The schedule allows time for a coffee break.
5. To plan for in case of need: allow two inches in the fabric for shrinkage.
6. To grant as a discount or in exchange: allowed me 20 dollars on my old typewriter.
7. Chiefly Southern & Midland U.S.
a. To admit; concede: I allowed he was right.
b. To think; suppose: “We allow he's straight” (American Speech).
c. To assert; declare: Mother allowed that we'd better come in for dinner.

Clearly, we're talking about some aspect of definitions 1-3, all of which use the word "permit," which means "To grant consent or leave to (someone); authorize." Note the common root with the word "permission."

Your opinion is noted.

It's not my opinion. It's not authorized by the Constitution anywhere, therefore, they can't do it.

Creating a system of law that protects people against contracts made under duress is hardly nothing, I think.

But again, this agreement is not being made under duress. "Agree to this condition or we don't do business" is not duress. "Agree to this condition or I kill your daughter" is.

"[T]he 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." (dictionary.law.com)

"[W]hen one, by the unlawful act of another, is induced to make a contract or perform or forego some act under circumstances which deprive him of the exercise of free will." (Black's Law)

They aren't induced to make the contract. They can walk out at any time. Hence, it's not duress.

Do you expect me to answer that when I have repeatedly said that there isn't?

Then why do you keep bringing up duress?

The relevance lies in the fact that it is the government that makes and protects contract law to protect people from coercion.

But yet again, THAT ISN'T WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE!

As such it is the government that defines what a legal contract is and what it isn't. If the government decides that discrimination against smokers cannot be part of a legal contract, then such contract is not legal.

The government can't just up and decide that. The Constitution doesn't let them. It has to be ruled that way in a court of common law or equity.

 

[crimresearch]

Hm. No. Doesn't work. Imbalanced.

I reach an agreement with my boss, we sign it.
If he wants to change the agreement then we negotiate.
If we reach an agreement then we sign that; otherwise,
the old agreement stays in force.

If it worked the way then I could go tell the boss I'm changing
the agreement unilaterally and he cannot fire me for doing so.
No need for co-workers nor convincing.

P.S. You got the concept of firing your boss wrong.
It's not you quitting, but you saying to your boss, "Your Fired!"
He clears out his desk and never returns. See?

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.

 

[Tony]

I get that. Tony says its illegal and criminal and I disagree.

Well, I never said it was illegal per se. I just said this company should be sued. I don't see how that implies illegality.

I said it was criminal because shanek said "only government and criminals use coercion". Using his logic, since this is coercion, it is criminal.

Also, the word "criminal" doesn't necessarily mean illegal. There have been many instances of "crimes against humanity" (slavery, genocide) where the acts weren't illegal in the countries they were committed.

 

[Tony]

Asked and answered.

Translation: I've already given the canned answer for that issue.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Hm. No. Doesn't work. Imbalanced.

I reach an agreement with my boss, we sign it.
If he wants to change the agreement then we negotiate.
If we reach an agreement then we sign that; otherwise,
the old agreement stays in force.

If it worked the way then I could go tell the boss I'm changing
the agreement unilaterally and he cannot fire me for doing so.
No need for co-workers nor convincing.

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?

 

[crimresearch]

Well, I never said it was illegal per se. I just said this company should be sued. I don't see how that implies illegality.

I said it was criminal because shanek said "only government and criminals use coercion". Using his logic, since this is coercion, it is criminal.

Also, the word "criminal" doesn't necessarily mean illegal. There have been many instances of "crimes against humanity" (slavery, genocide) where the acts weren't illegal in the countries they were committed.

Ahh.. I get it. 'When you use a word, it means just what you choose it to mean, neither more, nor less...'

Nice device for writing fairy tales...not so useful for honest skeptical discourse.

 

[shanek]

Consider yourself fortunate, or extremely talented and in demand then.

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.

Shane, I know that you know that agreements don't have to be in writing to be contracts.

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

Congratulations. And since you are a small business owner, I'm sure you would let the right candidate negotiate a lot of things because he/she was worth it to you and your business.

I would be powerless to stop him from doing so.

But to answer your question, I think it's a combination of both, usually. I know where I work, some things are negotiable, and many more if it's a high enough position. I was able to negotiate a start date and flexible hour plan, both of which were allowed as per company policy. (whoopee) But I guarantee you I wouldn't have been able to negotiate the core rules of employment...it was either sign or not take the job.

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.

 

[crimresearch]

Translation: I've already given the canned answer for that issue.

So now rape isn't illegal either?


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

 

[Snide]

Well, I never said it was illegal per se. I just said this company should be sued. I don't see how that implies illegality.

I said it was criminal because shanek said "only government and criminals use coercion". Using his logic, since this is coercion, it is criminal.

Also, the word "criminal" doesn't necessarily mean illegal. There have been many instances of "crimes against humanity" (slavery, genocide) where the acts weren't illegal in the countries they were committed.

OK, "actionable" then...or whatever you prefer. Which is also different from "should be actionable." And let's not get caught up in a semantic discussion regarding what "actionable" means. I'm referring to the legal definition, and by "legal" I do not mean "lawful". . . see why I hate debating semantics unless absolutely necesary!

 

[shanek]

P.S. You got the concept of firing your boss wrong.
It's not you quitting, but you saying to your boss, "Your Fired!"
He clears out his desk and never returns. See?

Compeltely and utterly wrong. The property, his desk, building everything, is his. Just as you take whatever you own with you when you're fired, the boss retains all of his property when you "fire" him.

 

[shanek]

I said it was criminal because shanek said "only government and criminals use coercion". Using his logic, since this is coercion, it is criminal.

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

 

[crimresearch]

I get that. Tony says its illegal and criminal and I disagree. What I'm open to listening to are those who claim it should be cirminal/illegal. THose are the "they" I am referring to...sorry for any confusion.

The confusion appears to come from those who are switching definitions of standard words.

And I've asked repeatedly if Tony or Username or anyone else was interested in discussing how things *should* be in this regard....so if they are interested in fairness, they have a funny way of showing it.

Or maybe the useful replies got buried under the avalance of 'I never brought up courts', and 'I'm not going to read the links' and other trollage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



In any case, as posted, the ACLU is working on model legislation to give workers more say so in their won work conditions and grounds for termination.

Anyone supported that initiative?