You smoke? You're fired!

[Santa666]

Re: Re: my two cents...

So at this point, what would you suggest to change things?


The best answer to this question would be to to follow Occam's Razor, or at least a variation thereof. The simplest solution is likely the best one. Employees should be allowed to engage in any legal activity which does not affect their job performance or conflict with company interests (yes I am aware this needs to be specifically defined) while on their own time. This solution may in fact open a fat can of worms, but it is simply and would very easy to implement.

To answer Diogenes,

Yes I agree 100%, it really is as simple as that. I do not believe anyone here would disagree with you. I think, though, that many have disagreed on whether it SHOULD be allowed and whether an employee has any "real" options when presented with such a scenario. For many people, quitting/resigning are not legitimate options when they are living paycheck to paycheck, therefore, these employees will feel they are being coerced into relinquishing a personal freedom just to keep their jobs. This matter of perception and whether your own personal time can be infringed upon is the crux of many issues here. If the employer should not be acting this way, then the employer needs to change his policies. If he will not change them , then legal action needs to be taken to correct this.

BTW, it is my understanding that the law does allow for the use of a person's point of view when assessing certain situations. Like, what would a "reasonable" person feel/do in a given situation. If my information regarding the law here is correct, this perception of coercion could be the lever that swings where the law will eventually land on this and similar issues.

If I am wrong regarding the law here, I welcome a correction, my understanding may be in error.


Your friendly, evil myth

Santa

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: my two cents...

The best answer to this question would be to to follow Occam's Razor, or at least a variation thereof. The simplest solution is likely the best one. Employees should be allowed to engage in any legal activity which does not affect their job performance or conflict with company interests (yes I am aware this needs to be specifically defined) while on their own time.

"Allowed" by whom?

 

[Santa666]

Re: Re: Re: Re: my two cents...

"Allowed" by whom?

I could say by anyone and everyone, but for the purpose of what I was stating, the be allowed statement applied to each employee's employer (boy that sentence sounds funny when you say it out loud). An employer should not institute policies preventing its employees from engaging in legal activies that do not affect job performance or conflict with company interest (this term will, of course, need further definition). This is the "allowing" to which I was referring.

ps...shane, I must commend you on one of the best signature I have seen is a long time. kudos.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: my two cents...

I could say by anyone and everyone, but for the purpose of what I was stating, the be allowed statement applied to each employee's employer (boy that sentence sounds funny when you say it out loud). An employer should not institute policies preventing its employees from engaging in legal activies that do not affect job performance or conflict with company interest (this term will, of course, need further definition). This is the "allowing" to which I was referring.

Uh, okay...let me put it this way: who is going to enforce it?

ps...shane, I must commend you on one of the best signature I have seen is a long time. kudos.

Thanks!

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Re: Re: Re: my two cents...

Employees should be allowed to engage in any legal activity which does not affect their job performance or conflict with company interests (yes I am aware this needs to be specifically defined) while on their own time.

What gives you the right to decide what conflicts with the company interests?

Why do you assume that you are better placed to determine this than the employer? If you are wrong, and the policy DOES damage the company, are you liable for the damage suffered? If not, why not?

 

[Ian Osborne]

Re: Re: Re: Re: my two cents...

What gives you the right to decide what conflicts with the company interests?

Why do you assume that you are better placed to determine this than the employer? If you are wrong, and the policy DOES damage the company, are you liable for the damage suffered? If not, why not?

If an employer can demonstrate the employee's activities conflicts with company interests, then the employer can sack him or her. The policy CAN'T damage the company in this way.

 

[Santa666]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: my two cents...

Uh, okay...let me put it this way: who is going to enforce it?


Unfortunately, the same entity who enforces our current labor laws, the courts/government. Currently, if you are dismissed from your job because of your age, race, religion, etc... you have established legal recourse. Enforcement, at least as our current system allows, is more of a retroactive response to a violation of statutes in place rather than some form of immediate intervention. For now, having the law guarding an employee who wishes to engage in activities of his own choosing on his own time (which do not affect job performance or conflict with company interest) would have to be enough. It's not the best solution, but I do not yet have a better one.


To answer Jaggy Bunnet:

I would never presume to know what conflicts with any particular company's interests, and I have made it clear several times that a definition of said conflicts would have to designed. For example, if a company could show that smoking does indeed conflict with company interests and not say, with company desires, then perhaps they should be allowed to prohibit it. I am fully aware "company interests" can be a very broad term which could theoretically apply to just about anything. Likely the courts (or legislation) would have to step in and apply a filter to such definitions in order to establish equity between "company interest" and discrimination. Yes, I know singling someone (or a group of someones) out because they smoke is not discrimination, but that is the path down which this idea may lead.

Hopefully I have answered everyone's concerns.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: my two cents...

An employer should not institute policies preventing its employees from engaging in legal activies that do not affect job performance or conflict with company interest (this term will, of course, need further definition). This is the "allowing" to which I was referring.

I don't believe anyone who has participated in this thread has disagreed with you in this regard..

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: my two cents...

Unfortunately, the same entity who enforces our current labor laws, the courts/government.

So, then, you believe the government should enforce morality?

I would never presume to know what conflicts with any particular company's interests,

And yet, you're willing to give the government the power to regulate the hiring and firing of employees.

For example, if a company could show that smoking does indeed conflict with company interests

Why should they have to? At the very least, shouldn't it be the other way around? Can I be hauled in at any point and asked to prove that I haven't committed any murders lately?

Likely the courts (or legislation) would have to step in and apply a filter to such definitions in order to establish equity between "company interest" and discrimination.

And those filters would have to be a one-size-fits-all solution to a complex market where no two businesses are exactly alike. Surely you see the problem here?

 

[Tony]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: my two cents...

So, then, you believe the government should enforce morality?

LOL

Blatant dishonesty.

Everyone, including you, believes the government should enforce morality.

And yet, you're willing to give the government the power to regulate the hiring and firing of employees.

Protecting the rights of the people is a legitmate role of government.

Why should they have to? At the very least, shouldn't it be the other way around? Can I be hauled in at any point and asked to prove that I haven't committed any murders lately?

False analogy.

And those filters would have to be a one-size-fits-all solution to a complex market where no two businesses are exactly alike.

I'd like to see a source on that. Particularly the part about "no two businesses are exactly alike".

Surely you see the problem here?

It's not a perfect solution, but it's better than a marketplace where free people are compelled and coerced into giving up their natural rights for the cause of an employer's greed.

 

[Santa666]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: my two cents...

Originally posted by shanek
So, then, believe the government should enforce morality?

Morality? I am confused, what moral issue is at stake here? The courts/government enforce laws as to what you do all the time. It currently enforces our labor laws. This would be some form or addition to the laws already in place.

And yet, you're willing to give the government the power to regulate the hiring and firing of employees.

The government already regulates how employers hire and fire employees, through anti-discrimination rules. One point I have made is that this issue would likely lead to making it discrimination for employers to to enact policies regulating what its employees do during their own private time (based or course on certain definitions).



Why should they have to? At the very least, shouldn't it be the other way around? Can I be hauled in at any point and asked to prove that I haven't committed any murders lately?

Of course they should have to, your analogy does not apply. If the employees are engaging is a LEGAL activity that does not affect their job performance and they believe does not conflict with company interested, then yes, if the company does not want them to engage in this activity, they would have to show how it conflicts with company interests.


And those filters would have to be a one-size-fits-all solution to a complex market where no two businesses are exactly alike. Surely you see the problem here?

Here I do see your point and one-size-fits-all solutions will not work, BUT, as stated earlier, there are anti-discrimation laws in place that apply to all businesses regardless of how complex a market they exist in. Could not the current laws expand to encompass new material, namely, this subject matter. I am certainly no expert on the law, thus, I may be completely wrong as to what the law can or cannot be modified to encompass. If the anti-discrimination (or similar) laws cannot accomodate this issue, then I have no viable solutions and will have to resort to pure speculation and hypothetical situations. I am done.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: my two cents...

Morality? I am confused, what moral issue is at stake here?

The contention here is what a good employer should do. That's a question of morality.

The courts/government enforce laws as to what you do all the time.

That doesn't mean they're supposed to, or that it's a good idea.

The government already regulates how employers hire and fire employees,

Again, that doesn't make it right.

Of course they should have to, your analogy does not apply.

Of course it does. They're being accused of the "crime" of placing a condition on employment (that the employee AGREED TO, I feel I have to point out again) that doesn't conflict with company interests. You're requiring them to take positive action to show that they're not doing that. Sorry, that's not what this country is about. Even if we were to agree that it's a proper role of government to do this, the burden of proof is ON THE ACCUSER.

Here I do see your point and one-size-fits-all solutions will not work, BUT, as stated earlier, there are anti-discrimation laws in place that apply to all businesses regardless of how complex a market they exist in.

And they don't work any better than this hypothetical law would.

 

[Santa666]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: my two cents...

The contention here is what a good employer should do. That's a question of morality.

I am not suggesting this is what a good employer should do, I am suggesting it is what ALL employers should do.

That doesn't mean they're supposed to, or that it's a good idea.

Let's assume for just a moment you are correct here on this point. Then WHO is supposed to, who should govern what we do as a society? A long time ago we establised laws and means of enforcing, creating, and interpreting those laws. That was our government. So, if now it is not ok for the government to regulate what we do, then who will regulate it?

Again, that doesn't make it right.

Again, if its not right, then how do we help prevent discrimination? Surely you do not believe it is ok to discriminate against people for the purpose of hiring and firing? It is the government that regulates this, and you have implied they are wrong to do so, so perhaps it is perfectly acceptable to allow discrimination.

Of course it does. They're being accused of the "crime" of placing a condition on employment (that the employee AGREED TO, I feel I have to point out again) that doesn't conflict with company interests. You're requiring them to take positive action to show that they're not doing that. Sorry, that's not what this country is about. Even if we were to agree that it's a proper role of government to do this, the burden of proof is ON THE ACCUSER.

You are taken this much further than neccessary. All I have stated is that if a company wishes to restrict the personal freedoms (off the job) of its employees, then that company would need to demonstrate how those personal freedoms conflict with company interests. No one is hauling these companies into court and saying "Show us how a violation of this policy or that policy is against company interest." I am stating that if a company is going to threaten dismissal from the job for violation of company policy, then they should also be expected to show how violating the policy conflicts with company interest.

And they don't work any better than this hypothetical law would.

You cannot possibly know whether they would work or not. Of course it is a hypothetical law. I was asked what my solution was, and I provided it.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: my two cents...

I am not suggesting this is what a good employer should do, I am suggesting it is what ALL employers should do.

Same thing.

Let's assume for just a moment you are correct here on this point. Then WHO is supposed to, who should govern what we do as a society?

We are supposed to be self-governors. For our private lives, our relationships, our business dealings, etc., it is each of us who governs his own life. Again, the only exception is when others initiate force or fraud; then, and only then, does the person have proper redress with the government.

A long time ago we establised laws and means of enforcing, creating, and interpreting those laws.

Yes; it's called the Constitution, which does not allow for this level of interference, at least on a Federal level.

Again, if its not right, then how do we help prevent discrimination?

You can't prevent discrimination by force. You can only prolong it. Discrmination is prevented by education, outreach, the changing of hearts and minds.

Surely you do not believe it is ok to discriminate against people for the purpose of hiring and firing?

Morally? No. But again, you can't legislate morality.

It is the government that regulates this, and you have implied they are wrong to do so, so perhaps it is perfectly acceptable to allow discrimination.

Just because the government has no business in one particular area does not mean that anything you could potentially do there is "perfectly acceptable." It just means that government can't use force to prevent it.

You are taken this much further than neccessary. All I have stated is that if a company wishes to restrict the personal freedoms (off the job) of its employees, then that company would need to demonstrate how those personal freedoms conflict with company interests. No one is hauling these companies into court and saying "Show us how a violation of this policy or that policy is against company interest."

Then where would they need to demonstrate it?

I am stating that if a company is going to threaten dismissal from the job for violation of company policy, then they should also be expected to show how violating the policy conflicts with company interest.

Expected to show whom?

You cannot possibly know whether they would work or not.

Of course I can. All I have to do is look at the horrendous track record of these kinds of laws in the past.

 

[Santa666]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: my two cents...

Originally posted by shanek

We are supposed to be self-governors. For our private lives, our relationships, our business dealings, etc., it is each of us who governs his own life. Again, the only exception is when others initiate force or fraud; then, and only then, does the person have proper redress with the government.

This example would be of some ideal utopian paradise in which most of us do not exist. I would love to live in that world, but unfortunately, we do not. Our society does not function that way, so while we are attempting to educate, reach out and change the hearts and minds of others, we should use the system we have now to the best of its ability and let the government prevent the infringement of personal freedoms into which employers have no business delving.

Yes; it's called the Constitution, which does not allow for this level of interference, at least on a Federal level.

I am probably going to sound stupid but I will ask anyway. Where in the Constitution is the government barred from preventing discrimination?

You can't prevent discrimination by force. You can only prolong it. Discrmination is prevented by education, outreach, the changing of hearts and minds.

You have my vote here, but this is not going to happen overnight, and there needs to be rules in place until society reaches this level of utopia.

Morally? No. But again, you can't legislate morality.

This is an entirely separate issue that could easily spawn a whole new thread (would people perform immoral acts without laws saying theY can't). Let's not worry about this issue quite yet.

Just because the government has no business in one particular area does not mean that anything you could potentially do there is "perfectly acceptable." It just means that government can't use force to prevent it.

If the government has no business regulating things, then who will. You say we should be self regulating, but we are not, so who will do it?

Then where would they need to demonstrate it?

I am not talking about some committee, they need to demonstrate to employees and of course they would need to demonstrate in court should they be challenge on their policy. Companies need not go out of their way to show that what they are doing is right or wrong, but they need to demonstrate this rightness if confronted, either by an employee or the government.

Expected to show whom?

This would be the same as above.

Of course I can. All I have to do is look at the horrendous track record of these kinds of laws in the past.

I cannot comment here yet, I would have to do some research.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: my two cents...

This example would be of some ideal utopian paradise in which most of us do not exist.

No, it's a very realistic system, and possibly the only one that works.

Our society does not function that way, so while we are attempting to educate, reach out and change the hearts and minds of others, we should use the system we have now to the best of its ability and let the government prevent the infringement of personal freedoms into which employers have no business delving.

But that just makes the problem worse. As society progresses forward, government drags it back.

I am probably going to sound stupid but I will ask anyway. Where in the Constitution is the government barred from preventing discrimination?

It doesn't work that way. Article I Section 8 is a list of all of the things the government is allowed to do. The Doctrine of Enumerated Powers says that if it's not in that list, and it's not in any amendment, the government can't do it.

The reality is that you would need to show that the govenrment is expressly given the power in the Constitution to prevent discrimination in the marketplace.

You have my vote here, but this is not going to happen overnight, and there needs to be rules in place until society reaches this level of utopia.

But force doesn't work! Government doesn't work! All these things will do is just delay what you're trying to do. And even worse, once government has gotten its toehold in this area of our lives, it's incredibly hard to get it out.

All the civil rights movement wanted initially was to get rid of the racist government laws that set up a segregated society. And look what happened. This is what happens when you get the government involved.

If the government has no business regulating things, then who will.

Look on just about any electronic device you have. Turn it over, look engraved on the plug, or on a tag, somewhere you'll almost certainly see the UL logo (if not the UL logo, then CE or one of the other zillions of similar organizations, UL being the most prominent). This is a private certification seal that makes sure this electronic device is safe. No government necessary.

You say we should be self regulating, but we are not,

We are, as long as we don't have government forcing one way on us.

I am not talking about some committee, they need to demonstrate to employees and of course they would need to demonstrate in court should they be challenge on their policy. Companies need not go out of their way to show that what they are doing is right or wrong, but they need to demonstrate this rightness if confronted, either by an employee or the government.

But we're right back to the problem. It is up to the ACCUSER to prove that the company has broken the law. Here you are placing the burden of proof on the defendant (the company).

And that's assuming government has any business in this area in the first place.

 

[Santa666]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: my two cents...

Originally posted by shanek

Shane,

I am going to do what could easily be called "an about-face" because I am finding my argument heading down a path I do not believe in. I agree with your position that the less government interference there is, the better (Yes, I know this sounds completely contrary to what I have just been arguing, so please let me explain). There needs to be a regulating force to ensure the rights and freedoms of employees, and right now, that force would be the government. I would guess that no one wants the government stepping in and creating more and more rules to dictate what we do, but the fall back position is a question I have asked, if not the government, then who? I will ask again, Shane, you have said we need to regulate ourselves, so how would we regulate ourselves in this particular situation? If you remove the government from this equation to reduce its interference, who/what steps up to the plate in its stead?

It appears that we agree on a great deal here, Shane, and I you have enlightened me. Thank you.

But we're right back to the problem. It is up to the ACCUSER to prove that the company has broken the law. Here you are placing the burden of proof on the defendant (the company).

On this point I will strongly diagree; the accuser here is the COMPANY. They have instituted a policy and the company is accusing the employee of violating that policy. It then becomes the responsibility of the company (if they are challeged) to show how a violation of this policy is a conflict of company interest.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: my two cents...

I would guess that no one wants the government stepping in and creating more and more rules to dictate what we do,

Well, apparently someone wants that, because they keep doing just that. I suspect that someone involves both the people in power and the people who profit from them being in power.

but the fall back position is a question I have asked, if not the government, then who?

I have given you examples. What do you need government to do for you that you can't do yourself, or get someone else to do for you voluntarily?

I will ask again, Shane, you have said we need to regulate ourselves, so how would we regulate ourselves in this particular situation?

There are lots of ways. I've mentioned a few just in this thread. The workers could form a union. The public could boycott the business. When Denny's had that problem with giving bad service to blacks, it wasn't the lawsuits that made them change their nondiscrimination policy (those were still years away), it was the negative public backlash. That stuff is very effective.

It appears that we agree on a great deal here, Shane, and I you have enlightened me. Thank you.

You're most welcome!

On this point I will strongly diagree; the accuser here is the COMPANY.

No, they aren't. The company is the defendant. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. You're the one talking about bringing the company to court because of this (unless you revised that above), and so the burden of proof is on whoever brings the case forward, not them. They're the defendant.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: my two cents...

On this point I will strongly diagree; the accuser here is the COMPANY. They have instituted a policy and the company is accusing the employee of violating that policy. It then becomes the responsibility of the company (if they are challeged) to show how a violation of this policy is a conflict of company interest.

The accuser is, quite clearly, the employee. It is the employee who will bring the case to court and the employee who will seek redress. It is totally illogical to try and argue they are not the accuser.

 

[Ian Osborne]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: my two cents...

The accuser is, quite clearly, the employee. It is the employee who will bring the case to court and the employee who will seek redress. It is totally illogical to try and argue they are not the accuser.

I'm not sure how pertinent this is. The employer who fires a member of staff for smoking on his own time is an accuser - he's accusing the staff member of partaking in an activity that harms the company. Conversely, if the staff member takes the issue to court, he's then the accuser - he's accusing the company of dismissing him unfairly.

In court, the staff member must prove he was dismissed unfairly, though the onus must be on the company to demonstrate smoking outside working hours is detrimental to its operations, otherwise you're asking the staff member to prove a negative.