You smoke? You're fired!

[shanek]

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.

Like, the Catholic Church?

 

[shanek]

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

Tell it to Black's Law. Tell that to the judges in Schlitt v. Schlitt who used that very definition.

 

[crimresearch]

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...

When employers, particularly big corporations, want to get *out* of a deal they can go to some truly astonishing lengths, suppported by battalions of lawyers, and contradictory court rulings.

That isn't what is going on here. This is a well understood principle of labor law, that the job belongs to the employer, and with a few obvious exceptions, that they can employ almost at will.

And that is based upon the equally fundamental idea that acceptance of the paycheck signals agreement with the conditions of employment...unless certain factors are present, such as 'force actual or constructive' (what some here are calling 'coercion').

And 'constructive force' is along the lines of threatening to kill the employee's family, not threatening to fire the employee.

The fact that the fired employee may become unhappy, or suffer financial hardship, may be a matter of unfairness, but not of force or breach of contract.

 

[crimresearch]

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.

And I also quite clearly cited the law which pointed out the few exceptions to the employer's rights..one being requiring an employee to agree to an illegal act.

How convenient of you to pretend that doesn't change anything.

Or are you seriously arguing that if there are *any* exceptions, that anything goes?

 

[crimresearch]

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.

Ahhh yes..Tonyspeak again, where it is' duplicitious' to acknowledge that there is a difference between ordering an employee to perform a legal act, and ordering an employee to perform an illegal one.

 

[Snide]

Tell it to Black's Law. Tell that to the judges in Schlitt v. Schlitt who used that very definition.

Whoah now. If I told you I had some judges who agreed with my definition of a word you and I disagreed on, I know you wouldn't budge!

 

[Snide]

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.

I don't disagree with that at all.

Why? What's the difference?

Sorry, I don't understand the question. What's the difference between what and what?

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.

Agreed. I don't think it's coercion. I don't like that it's not a 100% fair bargaining process most of the time, but I don't call it coercion to add a non-smoking policy as mentioned in the OP, and I'm not persuaded that common or statutory law should have remedies in place for this.

 

[Ian Osborne]

It's [a boss demanding sex as part of an employment contract] called "prostitution." And even though it's not legal, it should be.

So it's perfectly OK for a business owner to take advantage over the vulnerable by abusing his position in this way? Boy, you sure are taking society backwards here.

 

[gnome]

For those that are OK with this policy... I wanted to follow up on a point that was made earlier...

What is the legal distinction that can be made between an employer requiring the employee not to smoke, even off the job, and one requiring the employee not to vote?

I'm trying to avoid a straw man argument here--I believe even those that agree with the former wouldn't agree with the latter... but what I'm interested in is, what is the distinguishing factor?

 

[crimresearch]

AFAIK the voting cases were involving Sheriffs...who have been granted great latitude in how they treat their deputized employees, due to their status as Constitutional Officers in many jurisdictions.

There may be some cases involving judges, or political parties requiring voting compliance that I haven't seen.

Now, what they *can't* do is follow their employees into the voting booth to check for compliance, so an employee would really have to bring this issue forward.

 

[crimresearch]

So it's perfectly OK for a business owner to take advantage over the vulnerable by abusing his position in this way? Boy, you sure are taking society backwards here.

How is legalizing prostitution 'taking society backwards'?

 

[Ian Osborne]

How is legalizing prostitution 'taking society backwards'?

Allowing a business owner to sexually abuse his staff is taking society backwards, back to a time when the victim had no redress.

 

[username]

Like, the Catholic Church?

That would be a special case as it is a church/state seperation issue.

 

[crimresearch]

"Allowing a business owner to sexually abuse his staff is taking society backwards, back to a time when the victim had no redress."


OK, now I'm confused..it has been repeatedly pointed out that such things are illegal..how do you get that they are 'allowed'?

And if prostitution *were* legalized, how would it be any different from other legal jobs?

 

[crimresearch]

That would be a special case as it is a church/state seperation issue.

So many pages, and you still haven't presented a rational argument.

Anything that blows your unfounded assertions out of the water, doesn't exist, or doesn't matter.

 

[crimresearch]

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?

Are you saying that cashing their paychecks doesn't constitute an agreement?

 

[Ian Osborne]

OK, now I'm confused..it has been repeatedly pointed out that such things are illegal..how do you get that they are 'allowed'?

I'm not saying they're allowed, but Shane is says they should be.

And if prostitution *were* legalized, how would it be any different from other legal jobs?

I'm not talking about prostitution per se, but groping, advantage-taking bosses who use their position of power to take advantage of their staff. These days, the employee has redress in those situations, but Shane seems to want a return to the days when they had to lump it or leave. I don't.

 

[Tony]

Ahhh yes..Tonyspeak again, where it is' duplicitious' to acknowledge that there is a difference between ordering an employee to perform a legal act, and ordering an employee to perform an illegal one.

The legality of the act is irrelevant when discussing the principle of the matter (besides, it's not illegal to have sex). You're hiding behind the legality to keep from addressing the implications of what you advocate. You're a coward.

 

[Tony]

So it's perfectly OK for a business owner to take advantage over the vulnerable by abusing his position in this way? Boy, you sure are taking society backwards here.

It's becoming apparent that shanek hates freedom, he loves ownership. In his world, the person who owned the most land/property/money would rule simply because he owned the most land/money/property. Personal rights wouldn't exist.

 

[TragicMonkey]

You know, I found a news story exactly parallel to the situation that caused this thread to spring into existence, yet people are insisting on making up crazy situations about working in the nude, hitting people with boards, and prostitution. What was wrong with the beer story? A guy got fired for drinking a different brand of beer on his own time! Is everyone who's okay with being fired for smoking okay with being fired for drinking the wrong brand of beer?

Oh, never mind. Once a thread reaches this many pages it's just quibbling and "I didn't say that" and people quoting the effing dictionary.

And I sincerely hope the people who are okay with the guy getting fired for drinking a Coors get fired themselves for equally ridiculous reasons, and see how you like it. Will they shrug, accept it as a principle of the glorious free market, and move on? Or will they complain about it? Hard cheese!