jaellon

Surely the libertarian view would be that BOTH the employer and the employee are entitled to do what they want. If the employer wants to impose a restriction on employees, then they are free to do so, the employee is free to seek employment elsewhere if they disagree.

I'm little L libertarian. I refuse to trade big government for big business. What an employee does on his own time is own business. If employment were an easily traded commodity, than I might see the employer's side to this, but it isn't and I don't.

I wonder what qualifies as a smoker: what about second hand smoke, can someone get fired for living with a smoker, or visiting a bar or club where smoking takes place? How about being overweight? How about not exercising regularly? How about driving fast, riding a motorcycle, or enjoying snow skiing? What if you simply refuse to eat your vegetables? What if you have a genetic condition? What if?

I can tell you that second hand smoke wouldn't show up in any significant amount. I would presume that the test has parameters that can measure the amount of nicotine in someone's system, for instance.

The other aspects of life that you mention, even though valid, don't add to the cost of benefits, rarely caused lost time @ work (due to breaks), and as much as you want to believe otherwise... overweight people are discriminated against. (sidenote- I am by no means overweight, but am conscious of this problem)
The thing is that people that Sky dive, snow ski, or ride motorcycles aren't a significant enough risk for insurance companies to assess added fees, nor do they lose productivity due to breaks. (I actually do all 3, and haven't missed work in about 5 years).

All that being said, as an employee and a manager, I understand the impact that smoking can have on a department's (especially a sales team) production. The funny and ironic part is that smokers are generally good employees. If you could get them to work all 8 hours of the day, maybe I'd hire more of them! I can't say that I'd make the same decision... but understand why someone would, and believe that it is the employer's right to do so. Added insurance costs+decreased production seem like legitimate reasoning.

I completely agree with an employer's right to prohibit smoking on company property, and to prohibit 'extra' breaks. The argument was that smokers have higher health costs. My argument is that there are other things that cause folks to have higher health costs, many of them personal choice issues. The 8-hour workday for all employees, I agree with; the determination of what I do off work, I disagree with: with the caveat that when I bring my off-work problems & habits to work, I can be held responsible for them.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Jaellon, you are correct sir!

Whether "big L" or "little l" libertarian, an "employer" (also known as a non-enslaved human) should be free to hire and fire anyone for whatever reason(s) they choose, just as an "employee" (another non-enslaved person) should be free to accept or decline any job (and conditions thereof) for whatever reason(s) they choose.

If I don't have a "right" to force anyone to work for me, why should anyone have a "right" to force me to put them to work? Didn't we abolish slavery a while back? Why do so many yearn for it's return?

If someone wants to spend their waking hours running a taco stand, and they prefer hiring only left-handed red-heads with a talent for yodelling, then that's their business (both figuratively and literally).

Really? What did I win?


Well said. I definitely wouldn't want anyone forcing me to remain at my job, even if my only complaint was that my boss was too fat. I should be able to jump ship at my convenience, with or without notice or reason, unless I've willingly entered into an employment agreement that prohibits it. Likewise my employer should be able to hire and fire at will.

Government employers may be a different matter, since the employer represents the taxpayers, who are expecting the most bang for the buck, so there needs to be valid reasons for hiring and firing.

And once again, you are correct sir! Your prize is the continued admiration of a fellow friend of freedom.

Government employment is completely different ball of wax because instead of an individual (private) employer paying the salaries, it is the entirety (to one degree or another) of all taxpayers footing that bill. It's just a tad more difficult to get 100 miilion+ taxpayers to agree on employment practices.

Then add the other millions who don't pay taxes but still have a say in employment practices (right to vote) despite the fact that they have contributed nothing to the (government employee) payroll. One more good reason for increasing private employment and decreasing government employment.

Furthermore, what I said about private employment...



Does not apply to government employment- I am sure that at least a few of the taxpayers who should have a say in employment practices due to their funding of the enterprise, may also indeed be right-handed brunettes who can tap-dance your socks off.

My computer just lost the post I carefully prepared for this thread , so I'm going to make this shorter (if not sweeter):

Gee, ain't it awful when concern for the bottom line causes us to try to deprive others of their rights to "life, liberty, [and/or] the pursuit of happiness"!

This employer, ostensibly because he wants to keep down health costs, is going to fire employees who test positive for smoking, even though they are doing it at home and on their own time. All hail the sacred bottom line!

I have to agree with the posters who assert that even "certifiably" healthy persons can suddenly drop dead, or they can acquire or develop severe illness. As the saying goes, "Eat right. Exercise regularly. Die anyway."

Costs go up because everything continually gets more expensive. But when it comes to the cost of living, this Congress and this President are not willing to raise the minimum wage to lessen the disparity between the cost of goods and what the poorest people in the workforce get paid.

This is a great freedom for corporations, isn't it? They can hire, fire at will--they can move the company to another country and pay lower wages where lower wages can still pay for food and shelter. And what of the American worker who isn't clearing $20,000 a year and gets his job swept out from under him? Send him to college? I read an article that says a community college in Ohio is not going to accept students who don't have health insurance coverage!

Now corporations can deprive people of jobs based on what they legally do off the job, regardless of whether that activity has any direct bearing on their performance on the job.

But these employers have the arrogance to call it "right to work" when there is not a union present to protect the rights of the employees.

All I can say is, that sucks. It may be legal, but it is certainly not ethical.

On May 31, 1984 my employer decided that for safety reasons, all persons in my job classification needed to be clean shaven. I would have to be clean shaven by 8:00 AM on June 1, 1984 if I wanted to stay employed. I was informed of this decision as I left work on May 31...

I had at that point shaved twice in the previous 20 years. I stopped at the barber on the way home, and was told that insurance regulations prevented him from shaving me. It wasn't considered safe.

I bought a razor, blades, shaving cream, and tried to shave in a gas station bathroom. The blades didn't fit the razor. I was sold a package of disposable razors and tried again.

I got home clean shaven, bleeding, and was greeted by my dog barking at me. My daughters, investigating, screamed, "Mom! There's a strange woman in the kitchen." My wife "investigated," decided that I had shaved for another woman, and filed for divorce.

I reacted rather violently to co-workers who drove for miles to see what I "really looked like." As I was walking down the street, one male co-worker crossed the street to tell me how much better I looked clean shaven. I told him, "I keep hearing that from all of the gay men. His supervisor made a point of searching me out to tell me I had "offended his employee." My supervisor was trying to intervene when he told me that shaving was a habit that would "grow on me." I kicked him where it hurt the most, presumed that I would be fired, changed clothes, clocked out, and went home.

I was sent to the plant psychiatrist the next day. "He has a beard. He might be able to understand your attachment." We talked long enough for me to explain why I was there. He excused himself for half an hour. He came back to say, "I spoke to your wife, and explained that you really did have to shave to keep your job. She's dropping the divorce action for now. Your supervisor felt your actions were justified, and no disciplinary action is planned. He had told the other supervisor not to get involved before he drove over to talk to you. I've scheduled an appointment for you with another therapist. I don't want to work for a company that does this to its employees, and I just quit."

It was a union shop. I filed a grievance that if I was shaving for safety reasons, it followed that razors, etc. were safety equipment and should be paid for by the company. The grievance was not only denied, but used as an example in supervisory training sessions for the rest of my career. I was routinely hassled about it by young supervisors and engineers until I retired.

Yes, I had the option to quit, but I had seniority in a union shop, enough time in that I would have a pension, medical benefits, a family, a home in the community... and I heard the story for the rest of my career of the one co-worker that did quit that day... Quitting a job is not always an easy option. I had adapted to several other changes in the work place, and I continued to adapt.

As an ex-smoker, I can realistically imagine the mindset of someone who had to quit smoking to keep their job a few more years until they can draw a pension. I would wake up every morning and say to myself, I can't wait to blow smoke in the boss's face at my retirement party.

Employees should have rights, and there should be restrictions on employers, but the current administration believes the outsourcing of jobs is "Good for America." As the posters say, "My door is always open. feel free to leave at any time!"

Holding up their end of the bargain? C'mon Tim. What constitutes "not taking care of themselves? And who gets to decide?

Let's say that we do allow employers to give health screens to employees, and to fire them for "not taking care of themselves". Right now, it's for smoking, or for getting "too fat". But what if your health screen shows that you've developed diabetes, or heart disease, even if you eat right and exercise regularly? Or what about cancer, multiple sclerosis, or muscular dystrophy? Does the employer get to decide that these show the employee wasn't taking care of himself? Does that entitle him to fire these employees?

And what if this health screening merely shows a likelyhood of one of these diseases? Do you get to fire somebody just because they might, at some point develop one of these illnesses?

Also, there's something important you are missing. We do indeed allow someone's "inability to take care of themselves" to burden the rest of society. It's called insurance. And whether it's health insurance or car insurance, we do agree to allow one person to burden the rest of us, with the promise being, that at some point, we may need to burden them, because of our inability to take care of ourselves.

That does not mean that everyone needs to pay the same policy rates. Someone who drives more than average, or who has a few accidents, pays a higher premium. So to do those who smoke, or drink heavily, or who are already diagnosed with diabetes or heart disease.



Except you're forgetting a few things, with regard to this specific company, aevans:

Smokers were already prohibited from smoking on company property and during working hours, before this new policy went into effect. So those employees who were still smoking, were only doing so on their own time, and away from work.

They were not taking any time away from the employer in the form of extra breaks, or losing the employer any productivity. His only argument was that, statistically, they "might" cause him higher insurance costs in the future. Even if they cost him higher insurance rates now, as has been pointed out already, those costs can be passed along to those that are responsible for the increased costs. It's done every day, in hundreds of other companies.


Oh, please. Have you taken a survey of all resaurant, bar and casino customers to come up with this? I think most customers are probably more of my mind-set - I don't really care what the wait-staff looks like (in terms of weight, anyway) as long as my food arrives hot, my drinks arrive cold, and they are both delivered in a timely manner. Otherwise, believe me, I don't much think about the wait-staff at my local establishments, and I don't pick my places to eat based on the size of the waiter or waitress, but the cleanliness and atmosphere of the restaurant, and the quality of the food and service.

No, I've taken no survey in expressing my opinion of what "everybody" thinks, and you seem to have not done so right here, either. What I did was read the article in question, and I refer you to this paragraph:



So whether or not you or I or others here think it is right, Michael Facenda believes that his customers, at least, prefer good-looking waitresses. It's a business decision. Fat waitresses don't have the same appeal to Borgata's customers. Borgata has every right to hire and fire who it will, especially if it's based on circumstances vital to the business, and not just Facenda's personal preference.

Other restaurants may not have the same business circumstances. I agree that if I go to, say, the IHOP, what I want is fast service and good food, and don't really care about how the waitress looks. Not everyone feels that way, though, and if it's a business decision, and does not infringe on any individual's rights, then to me, it is ethically justified.

I think that the entire issue boils down to one simple question. Can any employer tell employees what they can or can not do during their none work hours? My answer is heck no and if an employer fires a person for their actions off the job, they are libel for a whole pile of legal issues.

What I do in during my personal time is just that personal. I will not answer for it. My employer pays me for what I do during work hours, they do not 'own' me, if asked I would tell my employer to mind their own business.

The thought that an employer could make any demands on their employees' personal time is ludicrous.