You smoke? You're fired!

[Tony]

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.

No it doesn't. Not at all. I am not advocating that any employees should have any power over their employer's personal lives. I am not advocating a situation where employees can never be fired. To suggest the my argument leads to such a state is a non sequitor. However, you are arguing for a state where employer can dictate the personal lives of employees, and for what? For money and greed.

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

Why do you? Personally, I don't see business interests in competition with freedom. Freedom won when this country won it's independence and freedom won when the slaves were emancipated.

 

[crimresearch]

Oh, you are in fact making exactly that argument...that employees should be free to control employer's lives outside of their work relationship, you just won't admit it.
When you create strawmen, like employers being allowed to rape or prostitute their employees, it is 'logic'...but when the ineveitable *real world* results from your assertions is pointed out, it is 'irrelevant'.

How does suing someone to force them to pay higher insurance premiums for smoker's lifestyle choices, not interefere with the employer's private life?
Do you think such lawsuits are over in 30 minutes like on TV? They not only ruin individual's lives, and their family's lives, they afffect the other employees who lose jobs or raises when the company's bottom line gets hit.

You want to move back and forth between real life and utopia, between your own personal definitions for words and the dictionary, between legal claims and idealism, and between statist demands for the govenment to burden evil employers and pseudo-libertarianism, in order to craft a oneway argument, instead of offering useful ideas to improve things for both sides.

That isn't skepticism, OR libertarianism, it is contrarianism.

 

[Tony]

Oh, you are in fact making exactly that argument...that employees should be free to control employer's lives outside of their work relationship, you just won't admit it.

Bwahahahahahahahaha.

When you create strawmen, like employers being allowed to rape or prostitute their employees, it is 'logic'...but when the ineveitable *real world* results from your assertions is pointed out, it is 'irrelevant'.

Those aren't strawmen, and I never said anything about rape. I said something about consensual sex as a condition for employment, just like giving up smoking as a condition of employment. Like you guys said, if the person doesn't want to agree to those conditions, they don't have to work there. It's telling that you acknowledge force in one instance, but not in the other.

How does suing someone to force them to pay higher insurance premiums for smoker's lifestyle choices, not interefere with the employer's private life?

You're asking me to prove a negative. Why don't you show how it does interfere (or more accurately, dictate their behavior in their private life) with their private life.

Do you think such lawsuits are over in 30 minutes like on TV? They not only ruin individual's lives, and their family's lives, they afffect the other employees who lose jobs or raises when the company's bottom line gets hit.

Besides being an apple and oranges comparison, I agree with you. But guess what? There are penalties when we violate the rights of other people.

The solution, which would avoide all that mess, is simple. Respect an employee's freedom to live his life as he wants.

You want to move back and forth between real life and utopia, between your own personal definitions for words and the dictionary, between legal claims and idealism, and between statist demands for the govenment to burden evil employers and pseudo-libertarianism, in order to craft a oneway argument, instead of offering useful ideas to improve things for both sides.

That's a lie. I address the different points and arguments as they come.

and between statist demands for the govenment to burden evil employers.

Another lie. I want the government to do it's job and protect the rights of the people. If that burdens employers, so be it. That's the cost of freedom.

Do you consider laws against slavery statist government policies that burden the employer? What about laws requiring bathrooms? Laws required lunch breaks? Laws requiring sick leave? What about laws requiring the buiding be of sound construction? You trash the very "statist" ideas that allow us to have such a decent standard of living.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Oh, you are in fact making exactly that argument...that employees should be free to control employer's lives outside of their work relationship, you just won't admit it.
When you create strawmen, like employers being allowed to rape or prostitute their employees, it is 'logic'...but when the ineveitable *real world* results from your assertions is pointed out, it is 'irrelevant'.

How does suing someone to force them to pay higher insurance premiums for smoker's lifestyle choices, not interefere with the employer's private life?
Do you think such lawsuits are over in 30 minutes like on TV? They not only ruin individual's lives, and their family's lives, they afffect the other employees who lose jobs or raises when the company's bottom line gets hit.

If it's acceptable to cut out smokers because of the higher insurance premiums, how about cutting out women, because they have more medical expenses? They could have babies, and babies cost money. Or old people? What about fat people? They're riskier for heart attacks. Or cripples? Whoops, Johnson in the mailroom just had a kidney stone. Better fire him, he might get another and then the insurance might rise.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

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



Ok, but you ignore the argument:

You seem to be the one ignoring it.. You asked for a source and I presented evidence the sources were legion.. Why did you ask for a source?

Why do business interests trump freedom?
Why does the employee's freedom trump the employer's

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.
If the job requirement is ' no smoking ', that's the price of working there..


Your argument logically leads to a state where business interests rule and everything else (freedom, human rights, personal rights ect.) is subject to cost.

Your argument leads to a state where the employees's interest's rule..

Why is your argument more valid than mine?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

If it's acceptable to cut out smokers because of the higher insurance premiums, how about cutting out women, because they have more medical expenses? They could have babies, and babies cost money. Or old people? What about fat people? They're riskier for heart attacks. Or cripples? Whoops, Johnson in the mailroom just had a kidney stone. Better fire him, he might get another and then the insurance might rise.

I think we will see ' fat ' as the next big issue.

People are discrimated against for all the reasons you mention, it's just not as blatant as it once was..

I understand there is a lot of talk about fireing all monkeys.. It is just too costly to clean up after them...

 

[TragicMonkey]

I think we will see ' fat ' as the next big issue.

People are discrimated against for all the reasons you mention, it's just not as blatant as it once was..

But is it okay for an employer to fire employees who get fat? It carries health risks, same as smoking. So if the employer has a legitimate interest in shedding smokers, it also has an interest in removing the fat.

 

[Tony]

You seem to be the one ignoring it.. You asked for a source and I presented evidence the sources were legion.. Why did you ask for a source?

You provided one anecdotal source from a bias anti-smoking website. crimeresearch provided more than that.

Why does the employee's freedom trump the employer's.

They don't, they trump the employer's business interests. The employer is still free to live how he wants, and do what he wants.

If the job requirement is ' no smoking ', that's the price of working there.

Why do you keep using the same crap arguments? Then if the job requirement is sex with the boss, that's the price of working there.

Your argument leads to a state where the employees's interest's rule..

Which is a side effect of a state where personal freedom rules.

Why is your argument more valid than mine?

It's not really, it hinges on values. I value a country where people are free to live how they want in the face of government power, private power and government control via private power. Others value money over personal freedom.

 

[crimresearch]

If it's acceptable to cut out smokers because of the higher insurance premiums, how about cutting out women, because they have more medical expenses? They could have babies, and babies cost money. Or old people? What about fat people? They're riskier for heart attacks. Or cripples? Whoops, Johnson in the mailroom just had a kidney stone. Better fire him, he might get another and then the insurance might rise.

I wish you better luck than Tony or Username had in providing evidence that employers are allowed to fire those other groups for being female, or disabled, or old...

Whether or not you want to keep on ignoring it, in real life, there are exceptions to the laws that allow employes to hire whom they wish..but smoking isn't currently one of those exceptions.

So they can fire smokers because they can...the insurance cost was brought up as an example of *harm* to the employer, not as a legal reason for firing.
Nobody owes anyone a job, legally, with the exceptions already pointed out, complete with links, and still ignored.

If they have to ignore such evidence to construct their arguments, shouldn't that be telling you something?

If on the other hand, you are constructing a hypothetical slippery slope argument, where is the evidence that it wouldn't cut either way, instead of always favoring employers?

 

[crimresearch]

Another lie. I want the government to do it's job and protect the rights of the people. If that burdens employers, so be it. That's the cost of freedom.

So employers aren't people?
Some poor schlub trying to make a living as a plumber who adds a few assistants and some office staff, suddenly becomes 'one of them', and it is OK for the tobacco companies to bankrupt him with the costs asociated with boosting their sales?

But you aren't statist...or elitist. Right?

Riiiiight...

 

[TragicMonkey]

I wish you better luck than Tony or Username had in providing evidence that employers are allowed to fire those other groups for being female, or disabled, or old...

Whether or not you want to keep on ignoring it, in real life, there are exceptions to the laws that allow employes to hire whom they wish..but smoking isn't currently one of those exceptions.

If the principle on which firing smokers is that the employer has a legitimate right to cut out those with riskier health, then it would seem that the employer also has a right to fire the others. If the only thing preventing them from doing so is law against it, sheltering particular groups, what happens if the law changes? Big businesses wield a lot of clout in government. If they put enough pressure on, and had enough politicians in their pockets, and succeeded in removing the law protecting, say, the elderly from being fired for medical insurance cost reasons, then would you be against it, or would you support it, because the principle is the same?

My point is, it doesn't seem right to put up a principle then shelter particular groups, singling them out for protection against the principle.

If on the other hand, you are constructing a hypothetical slippery slope argument, where is the evidence that it wouldn't cut either way, instead of always favoring employers?

I don't see how it would help the employees if their employer could fire them for any reason at all without fear of consequence. Virginia law makes it an "at will" state--you can be fired at whim, or quit at whim, regardless. But if your employer says "I'm firing you because you voted for Kerry", you can still sue him blue in civil courts. Remove that consequence, and what then? How would an employee not be at the mercy of their employer? They could find another job, and then be at the mercy of someone new. Yeah, that's a great solution.


Hell, I don't really care to hargy-bargy in this thread for twelve pages. My point is that there is a great deal that is none of an employer's business. It seems un-American to expect people to curtail their private life activities out of fear of losing their livelihood. This is supposed to be a freedom-loving society.

 

[Tony]

So employers aren't people?

No, they're robots.

Some poor schlub trying to make a living as a plumber who adds a few assistants and some office staff, suddenly becomes 'one of them', and it is OK for the tobacco companies to bankrupt him with the costs asociated with boosting their sales?

No, he becomes a bussiness owner, and thus has no right to use his property to control the personal lives of others. Nice conspiracy theory though, I see that Huzington is rubbing off on you.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

You provided one anecdotal source from a bias anti-smoking website. crimeresearch provided more than that.

I gave you some google key words that yield 12 million hits. If you want to wallow in your ignorance, I am not going to stand in your way..

They don't, they trump the employer's business interests. The employer is still free to live how he wants, and do what he wants.

Your opinion.. With no merit..


Why do you keep using the same crap arguments? Then if the job requirement is sex with the boss, that's the price of working there.



Which is a side effect of a state where personal freedom rules.



That's called ' anarchy ' ....

It's not really, it hinges on values. I value a country where people are free to live how they want in the face of government power, private power and government control via private power.

I know (of ) some people like that.. The government they hate so much, provided them with a nice bridge to live under...

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

It seems un-American to expect people to curtail their private life activities out of fear of losing their livelihood. This is supposed to be a freedom-loving society.

You talk about freedom but ignore the employers freedom to choose who he wants to contract with for employment.

Say you found out that your employer did something in his private life that you found unacceptable and you no longer wanted to work for him. You are perfectly free to do so. Why do you believe that you are entitled to this right but your employer is not?

 

[crimresearch]

No, they're robots.



No, he becomes a bussiness owner, and thus has no right to use his property to control the personal lives of others. Nice conspiracy theory though, I see that Huzington is rubbing off on you.

OK Tony... all these pages without you providing facts, consistent lies such as 'I didn't say anything about the courts', and now you want to play the race card?
FYI, I was born this nice brown color, nothing has rubbed off.

here you go...

 

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by crimresearch
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.

This clears things up greatly. And yet, very depressingly.
The unfairness issue violates a sense of cosmic justice most poeple have.
Clearly laws will be put forth to fix the uneasy feelings.

How does suing someone to force them to pay higher insurance premiums for smoker's lifestyle choices, not interefere with the employer's private life?
Do you think such lawsuits are over in 30 minutes like on TV? They not only ruin individual's lives, and their family's lives, they afffect the other employees who lose jobs or raises when the company's bottom line gets hit.

Didn't Shanek answer this arguement brillaintly a few pages back.
I said something like, women get less money and work harder,
and he responded that adjusting for time out and other things
it isn't so.

I translated this into a mathematical/symbolic statement that in english
means, "If a worker costs an empolyer more in one aspect, then the
employer responds by lowering the worker's cost in other areas."

So a smoker doesn't cost any more because the employer pays him less.
Although this does not support the claim being made here, there is a realted
effect going around the news of late, see: Obesity Wages.

 

[crimresearch]

Quote Tragic Monkey:

"If the principle on which firing smokers is that the employer has a legitimate right to cut out those with riskier health..."

And as already pointed out, that is NOT the principle at work..
that was a derail tried by Tony or Username when they had no facts..they asked 'How does it harm the employer/' and they got that correct answer.
Why do you persist in spining it into the rationale for firing when it isn't? The rationale for firing is that the employer owns the business and has an individual civil right under that COnstitution, to hire whomever he wants.

My point is, it doesn't seem right to put up a principle then shelter particular groups, singling them out for protection against the principle

Like protecting the smoking industry at the expense of small business owners?

Virginia law makes it an "at will" state--you can be fired at whim, or quit at whim, regardless. But if your employer says "I'm firing you because you voted for Kerry", you can still sue him blue in civil courts.

People have been fired for those reasons and more in Virginia.

Did you even bother to read the links before spouting this nonsense?

Unless of course, you are talking about the Virginia that they have over in Tonyland.

 

[Solitaire]

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

Oh! Man I hate swing shifting...

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

Take it up with Shanek.

 

[Tony]

I gave you some google key words that yield 12 million hits. If you want to wallow in your ignorance, I am not going to stand in your way.

Dodge noted.

I've already explained that the cost is irrelevant, an explanation you ignored.

Your opinion.. With no merit..

Another dodge.

That's called ' anarchy ' ....

No it's not. This is another dodge btw.

know (of ) some people like that.. The government they hate so much, provided them with a nice bridge to live under...

Meaning?

 

[crimresearch]

This clears things up greatly. And yet, very depressingly.
The unfairness issue violates a sense of cosmic justice most poeple have.
Clearly laws will be put forth to fix the uneasy feelings.

Thank you for taking the time to discern what I meant to say.

I'm not happy about it being the reality either, but I'm more inclined to look for ways to improve the reality once I know what it is.