You smoke? You're fired!

[crimresearch]

" 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!"


Trouble is, it is some of the people complaining about the smoking firings who have contributed nothing to the discussion on how to make it better, preferring to rant about fantasy 'what ifs'.

It is the people who have looked into the facts of the matter, realized that they are what they are, and proposed ways to make it better, who are being ignored.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Is everyone who's okay with being fired for smoking okay with being fired for drinking the wrong brand of beer?

Hey mister Monkey, or do you prefer just Tragic,
That story seems to diverge somewhat from our story here.
It doesn't have a set of circumstances analogous to our employer, adapting a no smoking policy and then giving employees 18 months and support to comply and making them fully aware of the consequences if they did not comply.

To answer your question, the beer man being fired isn't O.K. with me either.

Either, I say ? Yes. As I have noted before, I'm not O.K. with the people being fired at Weyco. I'm just saying the employer had a legal right to do it.

I will add, that while I'm not O.K. with the firings, I really don't have a lot of sympathy for the people who chose to continue smoking under the circumstances..

 

[shanek]

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!

He accused me of using a made-up definition instead of the legal one. That was patently false.

 

[shanek]

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?

Um, maybe that there's no way to verify if the person hasn't, in fact, voted?

So, what do you think of "vote-traders"? This is a growing movement. It happens when people who want to vote for a third-party candidate, but don't want to "take votes from a Democrat/Republican," get together. For example, in 2004 someone who wants to vote for Badnarik, but is afraid of taking a vote from Kerry, gets together with someone else who wants to vote for Badnarik, but is afraid of taking a vote from Bush. Since their votes would have cancelled each other out anyway, they agree to vote for Badnarik. They each get absentee ballots and witness each other's ballot.

What do you think of that arrangement?

 

[shanek]

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

Who said the victims would have no redress? I've said they would at least twice.

 

[shanek]

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

So, why do Catholics get more rights than the rest of us? Isn't giving special rights to religious people against the Constitution?

 

[username]

Um, maybe that there's no way to verify if the person hasn't, in fact, voted?

So, what do you think of "vote-traders"? This is a growing movement. It happens when people who want to vote for a third-party candidate, but don't want to "take votes from a Democrat/Republican," get together. For example, in 2004 someone who wants to vote for Badnarik, but is afraid of taking a vote from Kerry, gets together with someone else who wants to vote for Badnarik, but is afraid of taking a vote from Bush. Since their votes would have cancelled each other out anyway, they agree to vote for Badnarik. They each get absentee ballots and witness each other's ballot.

What do you think of that arrangement?

Given that both parties have equal negotiating power and the decision is genuinely consentual I don't know how I could have a problem with it.

My entire problem with the smokers getting fired is that the employer, in my opinion, had way more leverage which equals coercion in my view. It isn't the employer's business is they smoke, who they have sex with, whether they chew gum etc.

I don't see what is so objectionable about employers not being able to require employees to waive privacy rights while off the job under penalty of being fired.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

quote: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?

Hello ?

I was responding to your post.

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.

You made up a story about a signed contract. There was not one in this case...

 

[shanek]

I don't see what is so objectionable about employers not being able to require employees to waive privacy rights while off the job under penalty of being fired.

Then perhaps you could address the property argument I gave numerous posts ago.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I don't see what is so objectionable about employers not being able to require employees to waive privacy rights while off the job under penalty of being fired.

Do you understand the principles of ' conflict of interest '?

Do you think it is O.K. to work for a competitor when you are off the job..




Oh, by the way.. Do You smoke ?

 

[username]

Then perhaps you could address the property argument I gave numerous posts ago.

If you consider it relevant and would like to repost it I will take a stab at it, but I am not interested in searching through 13 pages of posts to try and find it.

If your argument is that the employer owns the property and nobody is entitled to it then you can skip reposting as I don't buy the argument's relevance. The employer wishes to hire people in order to benefit from their labor. The employer is well within his rights to negotiate salary, insurance, vacation days, hours and the like as these are all factors that effect the employer's property.

Whether a given employee smokes, has sex, votes for communists or does most any other legal thing on his own time doesn't affect the employer's property and is therefore not his business.

The employer in this case can't know whether the employee smokes unless the employee smokes on company time. This means the employer has to invade the privacy of the employee to find out.

My proposed change to labor laws is very simple, no employer shall use the threat of being let go to coerce any employee to surrender any right to privacy concerning any legal activity engaged in exclusively on the employee's own time.

This still allows the employer to fire those who smoke on company time as well as the individual wearing a company t-shirt who does something stupid and gets on the 6 o'clock news.

What's the problem? How does it violate the employer's property rights to not be able to use threat of dismissal to pry into the employee's legal private life?

 

[username]

Do you understand the principles of ' conflict of interest '?

Do you think it is O.K. to work for a competitor when you are off the job..

A competitor? No. I would be using my knowledge and experience gained by employer a in service of employer b. This affects employer a's 'property value'.

Oh, by the way.. Do You smoke ?

How is this relevant? How would your position change if the answer is yes or no?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

How is this relevant? How would your position change if the answer is yes or no?

That's what I thought..

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Whether a given employee smokes ...... doesn't affect the employer's property and is therefore not his business.

This is where you are so wrong ...

It is an established fact, that smokers cost an employer more money than non smokers, when their on the job performance is otherwise equal...

That is why your strawmen about sex and voting are strawmen..


Nighty night....

 

[Tony]

It is an established fact, that smokers cost an employer more money than non smokers, when their on the job performance is otherwise equal...

That's a bold claim, source?

Also you're forgetting the earlier argument (dealing with the above statement), that was never fully addressed, about what high risk and potentially expensive behaviors should be forbidden. Can an employee lift weights? Drive a car? A motorcycle? Fly on a plane? Have anal and/or oral sex? Have un-protected sex? Play football? Run? Swim? Skydive? Eat at Mcdonald's? Should employers dictate what foreign countries their employees can visit? Can an employer threaten termination if an employee refuses to get an operation that would make them more productive? You're argument basically relegates human beings to mere property.

 

[username]

This is where you are so wrong ...

It is an established fact, that smokers cost an employer more money than non smokers, when their on the job performance is otherwise equal...



Nighty night....

ohyyfuvg

 

[crimresearch]

"That's a bold claim, source?"

The same source you ignored last time it was given.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

That's a bold claim, source?

How many sources would you like? One, five ten?
What will you accept as an authority? Insurance companies ?


I have a feeling that any research I do for you will be a waste of time..

Just google with " cost of smoking " ... 12 Million hits should keep you busy for a while, and we will be spared your baseless rhetoric..

Why would management be in favor of such restrictions on smokers? Because a smoking employee is a financial liability. Estimates of the additional costs of an average smoking employee range from several hundred to several thousands of dollars per year. Multiplied by several employees, smoking may end up costing an employer tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. Smokers cost more due to increased medical costs, higher insurance premiums, decreased productivity, more illnesses, and more accidents. Besides this, employee morale becomes affected when the second hand smoke issue surfaces. All in all, the economical and logistical burden placed on an employer due to employee smoking is substantial.

http://whyquit.com/joel/Joel_02_10_not_apply.html

( Anecdotal, but easily verified.. )

 

[Tony]

How many sources would you like? One, five ten?
What will you accept as an authority? Insurance companies ?

Any valid, officail source will do. If it is an established fact as you claim it shouldn't be hard.

http://whyquit.com/joel/Joel_02_10_not_apply.html

( Anecdotal, but easily verified.. )

Ok, but you ignore the argument:

Also you're forgetting the earlier argument (dealing with the above statement), that was never fully addressed, about what high risk and potentially expensive behaviors should be forbidden. Can an employee lift weights? Drive a car? A motorcycle? Fly on a plane? Have anal and/or oral sex? Have un-protected sex? Play football? Run? Swim? Skydive? Eat at Mcdonald's? Should employers dictate what foreign countries their employees can visit? Can an employer threaten termination if an employee refuses to get an operation that would make them more productive? You're argument basically relegates human beings to mere property.

Why do business interests trump freedom? Lets say for a minute that smokers and people who engage in high-risk behaviors are more costly, so what? That's the cost of freedom. Your argument logically leads to a state where business interests rule and everything else (freedom, human rights, personal rights ect.) is subject to cost.

 

[crimresearch]

Any valid, officail source will do. If it is an established fact as you claim it shouldn't be hard.

What part of 'Non-smoker's discount rates on insurance premiums' is too difficult for you to grasp?

"As used in this rule, the phrase "smoker and nonsmoker mortality tables" refers to the mortality tables with separate rates of mortality for smokers and nonsmokers derived from the tables defined in A through D of this section which were developed by the Society of Actuaries Task Force on Smoker/Nonsmoker Mortality and the California Insurance Department staff and recommended by the NAIC Technical Staff Actuarial Group. These tables are available from the Insurance Department."
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r590/r590-094.htm


Ok, but you ignore the argument:
Why do business interests trump freedom? Lets say for a minute that smokers and people who engage in high-risk behaviors are more costly, so what? That's the cost of freedom. Your argument logically leads to a state where business interests rule and everything else (freedom, human rights, personal rights ect.) is subject to cost.

Only in the same sense that your argument leads to a state where employees whims trump freedom, and where no employee can ever be fired for everything.

Why do you have such a problem with striking a balance between competing interests?