You smoke? You're fired!

[Tony]

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..

Yes, that is the principle, you're lying.

Why do you persist in spining it into the rationale for firing when it isn't?

You're the one who is spinning.

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.

Which has been explained to you many times, and which you continue to ignore, he doesn't have that right. An employer can't hire/fire based on who will have sex with him. He can't/fire based on who will convert to his religion.

 

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by username
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.

As this dangerous and erroneous conclusion seems to be pervasive in this thread, I think it would be good to go over the difference between a right and a privilege.

A right is something you can do without permission. You can do it without permission because it does not affect the person or property of others.

A privilege is something you need permission to do, as it involves intruding on the person or property of others.

So, above I mentioned that I can invite you into my home, but you can't break in. That's because my home is my property, and so you entering my home is a privilege, not a right. You need permission. But a privilege can be revoked any time; I can kick you out whenever I want.

In a business transaction, we have two (or more) players essentially exchanging privileges. You don't have a right to take money from my pocket, because my money is my property, but I have the right to give it to you. You getting my money is a privilege. I don't have a right to take your property, but you have the right to give it to me. Me getting your property is a privilege. So we can both agree that I will give you a certain amount of money in exchange for a certain amount of your property. But if we don't reach an agreement, no such transaction takes place.

In this case, we have an employee's body (and everything that goes with it: the ability to think, to labor, to type, to speak, to sell, whatever), which is his property, and we have Weyco's money and resources, which is their property. Employment is an economic transaction. If I'm employed, then I'm giving my employer some of my property: the portion of my body and mind that we agree on. In return, I'm given some of the employer's property, which consists not only of the wages and benefits I get, but also the use of a portion of their office space, computers, Post-It notes, etc.

So, by taking the job, I'm giving my employer privileges over my body. I agree, for example, that my physical body will be in their building from 8am to 5pm. But I don't have to show up. I can decide not to show up if I want. But, of course, if I don't, they'll most likely fire me.

Either side can terminate the agreement whenever they want. I can up and quit for no reason, or they can up and fire me for no reason. I can up and quit because they have no right to my property, even the portion of it I've agreed to let them use. They can up and fire me because I have no right to their property, even the portion of it they've agreed to let me use. These are privileges, not rights.

So, just as they can demand that I show up from 8 to 5, or even demand that I come into work next Saturday, they can demand that I submit to a drug test to see if I've been smoking. But I don't have to comply. If I don't, they'll most likely fire me, but that's because I don't have a right to their job.

It works the other way, too. I can go and demand a raise. But the company doesn't have to comply. If they don't, I can quit if I want, but that's because they don't have a right to my labor.

Once you understand this, you see why the argument that employers have an advantage is a red herring. Having an advantage over someone doesn't mean they have a right to your property. That's just plain Marxist Socialism.

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.

The key thing here is the affecting people or their property.
When a policy by a particular employer affects a person or
their property then society has the right to change it, I think
his arguement is.

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.

It's not about his business, but psychic feelings about the people around
him. A freedom of association kind of thing. We limit freedoms, like shouting
theater in a crowded fire. Thus laws against race or religion in hiring because
it affects massive numbers of people and siginifcantly alters economic power.
But the case of smoking might not legally reach that threash-hold.

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.

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?

Hm. Good question, don't know the answer.
Need to work up examples both real and absurd,
then look a the consequences of such an action
before reaching a decision.

 

[gnome]

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

This is a sidestep. Must we start the game of me having to constantly chisel at my example before you address the core point? If it makes you feel better, suppose they require employees to sign affidavits that they shall not vote, and send some observers to local polling places. I assume you would say this isn't acceptable. I'm looking for a distinction between giving up your smoking rights and giving up your voting rights. HOW it happens isn't important.

Surprising that I should be defending smoking rights here. In fact I haven't entirely made up my mind. That's what this discussion is, and you have a chance of changing my mind if you avoid side issues that aren't germaine to my point.

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?

To be honest, I think that's no different from foregoing a third-party candidate to oppose a major party candidate. The agreement isn't legally binding. It's just strategic voting, which most of us do all the time.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I'm looking for a distinction between giving up your smoking rights and giving up your voting rights. HOW it happens isn't important.

Well, for starters, one is about smoking and the other is about voting.

Smoking isn't a right, it is a priveledge.. I think Shane went over that one. I'll look it up if you don't want to bother.

 

[shanek]

This is a sidestep. Must we start the game of me having to constantly chisel at my example before you address the core point? If it makes you feel better, suppose they require employees to sign affidavits that they shall not vote, and send some observers to local polling places.

The affadavits are fine, although they probably wouldn't stand up in court. The observers almost certainly violate election laws.

I'm looking for a distinction between giving up your smoking rights and giving up your voting rights.

The distinction is, with your voting rights they would have to go outside of their property to enforce it.

 

[Tony]

Smoking isn't a right, it is a priveledge.. I think Shane went over that one.

Yes, smoking is a right. It's a right because I don't have to ask permission to do it, which is what shaneK said.

 

[Tony]

The distinction is, with your voting rights they would have to go outside of their property to enforce it.

As they also would with the case at hand. Have you not been paying attention? It bars employees from smoking at home (aka outside company property).

 

[crimresearch]

Yes, that is the principle, you're lying.
You're the one who is spinning.
Which has been explained to you many times, and which you continue to ignore, he doesn't have that right. An employer can't hire/fire based on who will have sex with him. He can't/fire based on who will convert to his religion.

Repeating your lies, and calling 'lies' on direct links to legal evidence refuting you isn't going to change anything Tony.
You lied about everything from your not bringing up the courts to the definition of rape, and now you are lying about what others have posted. You haven't provided any facts to support your extreme assertions.

The only tactic you have left is to run away in the flurry of name calling you've already started, and wait until it is 'safe' to claim that you proved your point here, hoping that no one will dig through all these pages of your BS to find the factual links to the contrary. And of course, if they do, you will only follow your past behavior of denial...

A truly pathetic performance on your part.

 

[shanek]

Yes, smoking is a right. It's a right because I don't have to ask permission to do it, which is what shaneK said.

It's a privilege if you want to smoke on my property.

 

[shanek]

As they also would with the case at hand. Have you not been paying attention? It bars employees from smoking at home (aka outside company property).

Your lack of reading comprehension is noted. I said they wouldn't have to go onto anyone else's property to enforce the agreement. And they don't. They can do a urinalysis on their own premises.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

As they also would with the case at hand. Have you not been paying attention? It bars employees from smoking at home (aka outside company property).

Show where the employer had to go outside the workplace to enforce it...

 

[Tony]

Repeating your lies, and calling 'lies' on direct links to legal evidence refuting you isn't going to change anything Tony.

The only link that was provided was think link saying smokers cost companies more money. You're lying that that link is evidence that refutes my assertion that people have personal rights.

You lied about everything from your not bringing up the courts

I didn't bring up courts. I brought up lawsuits. You're lying.

to the definition of rape

I never lied about that. I merely applied your shallow reasoning to consensual employer/employee sex as a condition of employment. The fact that you recognize it as rape, shows you recognize force is involved, which proves the point I was making about employers using force and coercion.

and now you are lying about what others have posted.

No I'm not.

You haven't provided any facts to support your extreme assertions.

My extreme assertions? What? Like the fact that people have personal rights? That's the assertion that underlies everything I've said. You want evidence that people have personal right?

A truly pathetic performance on your part.

Yeah, that's why you keep addressing my posts. You must be at the really low rungs of "pathetic" if you have to continue to address my "pathetic" posts. This statement:

The only tactic you have left is to run away in the flurry of name calling you've already started, and wait until it is 'safe' to claim that you proved your point here, hoping that no one will dig through all these pages of your BS to find the factual links to the contrary.

Describes you much more than it does me, and it's evident from your initial exchange with username that you lack the ability to think rationally. Hey, but I guess that's what we've come to expect from self-proclaimed "minorities" with a paranoid victim complex.

 

[Tony]

Your lack of reading comprehension is noted. I said they wouldn't have to go onto anyone else's property to enforce the agreement. And they don't. They can do a urinalysis on their own premises.

Do you have evidence that they are doing urinalysis on their own premises?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Do you have evidence that they are doing urinalysis on their own premises?

The article I read said they were using a breathaliser (sp?).

Are you really so dense?

Just in case..


The point is, the smoking ' could ' be verified at the work location.. The voting scenario couldn't..


Just so we're covering everything.. Yes, sexual activity could be verfied at the work location also...

 

[Tony]

It's a privilege if you want to smoke on my property.

Since the case at hand deals with someone smoking on their own property, this is not relevant.

But, I'd say I do have a right to smoke on your property. I have natural rights that come from the fact that I am alive. Since it takes force from you to keep/stop me from smoking, I have that right.

 

[Tony]

Show where the employer had to go outside the workplace to enforce it...

You're asking me to prove a negative again. Can you show that Weyco has the means to do the test on their own premises?

 

[Tony]

The article I read said they were using a breathaliser (sp?).

Are you really so dense?

Just in case..

ShaneK brought up the urinalysis, I was addressing his post. Are you this dense? I guess so.

And the article says nothing about a breathalizer.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4213441.stm

The point is, the smoking ' could ' be verified at the work location.. The voting scenario couldn't..

That still sidesteps the issue and makes a mockery of your much vaulted principle of the employer being able to fire people for any arbitrary reason.

So the principle isn't about the employer being able to fire anyone for any reason, but it's being able to fire employees for any reason, as long as the reason could be enforced on the premises of the employer.

Yep, keep moving those goal posts.

 

[crimresearch]

I didn't bring up courts. I brought up lawsuits. You're lying.

You said 'sue'. Which of course has nothing to do with the courts, right?

Riiiiight.


Still waiting for you to address the factual legal links I provided, or to come up with some of your own.
Not that you ever will.

Stick to the racist trolling Tony, it warns people what you are much more quickly.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

That still sidesteps the issue and makes a mockery of your much vaulted principle of the employer being able to fire people for any arbitrary reason.

That's a lie Tony. Nothing I have said comes close validating this statement. I have actually made several statements to the contrary.

Just shows how desperate you are..
Carry on..


Oh..

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/26/no.smoking/

The medical benefits company says they resigned when they refused to take a breathalyzer test under new rules imposed on January 1.

 

[crimresearch]

"So the principle isn't about the employer being able to fire anyone for any reason, but it's being able to fire employees for any reason, as long as the reason could be enforced on the premises of the employer."


Here we go folks...it is the famous flip-flop...
Tony is going to steal the very idea he has been arguing against all along, and claim it as his, thereby abandoning the arguments for which he could produce no facts, and stealing all of his opponent's facts at the same time.

What a brilliant stragey!!!