Reply With Quote
No, the freedom for you to be a dumbass...WTF does photoshop have to do with anything? That pic wasn't photoshopped.
That solider is a smoker...as are the majority of the US military.
Soldier smoking.
Soldier non-smoking!
No, the freedom for you to be a dumbass...WTF does photoshop have to do with anything? That pic wasn't photoshopped.
That solider is a smoker...as are the majority of the US military.
Last edited by whottt; 01-27-2005 at 08:56 PM.
I'm saying that an employer shouldn't have the right to intrude into an employees personal life. If the employee isn't engaged in any illegal activity then the employer has exactly jack to say about what he does at home...This includes whether he smokes, what he eats, how much he exercises...etc.
And if they are going to discriminate they damn sure shouldn't be allowed to go around making announcements that is what they are doing...talk about audacity.
Last edited by whottt; 01-27-2005 at 09:31 PM.
Show me the cons utional right that gives someone else the right to influence in any way shape or form what someone does within the confines of the law in their own home.
And then show me the birth certificate for Weyland inc.
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/about_us.htmlReally? Source that.
There's a link for you to not like and disagree with.
Business don't have any right -- because they don't need them. Their owners have all the same rights as you and I though.
Business most certainly do have rights, their own set of laws, their own set of regulations...but I agree technically they don't have rights...which is why I am left wodering why you are arguing as if they do...and claiming it is an individual utilizing his own cons utional rights.
There's a tremendous danger in the POV that you have...one that you may be immune to personally, but that's no excuse for ignoring the reality of the situation...
When you let these large bodies, that have the power over quality of life, and in some cases survival, for many Americans...they must be held in check...and it most definitely should be uncos utional for them to dicate what a person may or may not do in their private live as long as it is recognized as being legal by the US Government...
You can pretend people aren't dependent on their jobs, but it's just not the truth...people are dependent on them..in some cases permanently chronically dependent on them with little or no choice or alternative...and that's no excuse to allow corporate en ies to take advantage of that dependence, that power of dependence to interfere in the private lives of US citizens...or manipulate them to satisfy their own personal whims.
Do I have a right to know if you smoke in your own home? Using any rationalization you can imagine? Do I have right to have any say in how much exercise you do per week?So? smokers and over-eaters are not in a protected class defined by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any other legislation of which I'm aware. Discriminating against them for being fat and/or stinky, in this case, would be akin to discriminating against them for wearing bikini to work. All three conditions are a function of the personal choice of the smoker, eater, and bikini wearer.
Again...he doesn't have to pay the extra cost of the insurance.
Yep and sometimes people make them on the behalf of corporations...as in this case.Bias and discrimination get a bad rap here. They should only be scrutinized when the criteria against which the bias or discrimination is targeted is a condition beyond the control of the person such as -- race, ethnicity, sex, national origin, etc...
Corporations don't make employment decisions, people do.
That's a rather broad interpretation of the government for one who is a Republican...I think it's purpose is much simpler than that. It is to protect the people, from external threats, from internal threats and sometimes from itself.The job of the government is to ensure all citizens are treated equally, that the U.S. Cons ution is the basis of our body of law, that our borders are secure, and to facilitate relationships with other governments. I'm sure I missed something...but protecting you individually isn't the function of government...at least not the federal government; it has something to do with the whole concept of "providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare" idea forwarded in our founding do ents.
The cons ution was never intended to give those in a position of power to make uncons utional requests, demands, and ultimatums to it's citizens.I disagree...rule of law is paramount to emotions in this country. It is upholding the very ins utions upon which this country was founded to stick to the "technical" and not let the emotions of the day allow us to cir vent the Cons ution -- the whole unintended consequences thing, you know.
I get it the same place I have the right to whatever religious belief I choose, the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness...
If I am going to hire a home health care worker to take care of an elderly family member, I will not hire one that smokes. If they say they don't smoke and find out they do, I would fire them. Is that discrimination?
The company doesn't have to endure jack ...if the guy isn't doing his job you can fire him...you don't have a right to force him to reveal whether or not he does something that is totally legal in the Unites States...this includes being fat or smoking.
If the guy isn't doing his job, you fire him...you don't use blanket statistics to strongarm him into what you think is best for him...
Last edited by whottt; 01-27-2005 at 09:25 PM.
I'm not quite sure what you mean...your home or theirs?
If theirs, well obviously since it poses a health risk to the elderly person...
If it's not their home...yours...I think you can say that they may not smoke while taking care of your family member...
I don't think you have the right to ask them if they smoke or not. I don't think you have any rights whatsoever concerning what they do in their own home. And this includes asking them to take a test to find out if they do something that is legal...
Pardon me if the obvious escapes me, but why?
If I ask them if they smoke and they LIE I think I should be able to fire them.
I would find it hard to believe that a person who smokes can go hours without a cig while they are taking care of the elderly person. I rather just pass on that hire than take a chance on it.
GON.
I can't hire a smoker to take care of the elderly family member for a mul ude of reasons.
1. I do not want an elderly person who has numerous health problems inhailing second hand smoke day after day.
2. I dont want the person that is supposed to be giving the elderly person their undivided attention to take cig breaks outside. A person who doesn't smoke would not need to take breaks outside. Should I be forced to provide an indoor smoking section?
3. I don't want the house to smell like cig smoke. Is that being unfair?
4. I don't want the associated risks that smoking brings to my property.
I gave all what I think are very reasonable responses. Is that unfair that I can set those qualifications for the hire?
Hey, the game is on!
I think this is where you're mistaken. You're right, of course, but this doesn't involve intrusion -- the employee is perfectly free to continue the practice of smoking. It is, after all, legal. But, they're gonna have to find another employer. Simply a matter of choice.
Again, the employer is not telling the employee they can't smoke. Just that they aren't going to employ them if they do.
You discriminate every breathing moment. Why is discrimination such a dirty word?
You won't find it. But, this isn't about influencing a persons behavior in their home. It's about employer/employee rights and whether an employer has the right to employ whomever they want. The employee is perfectly able to continue smoking.
There's a big difference between "quit smoking or I'll fire you," and "quit smoking or I'll kill you." One is infringing on someone's cons ution right, the right to life while the other isn't.
My point exactly. They don't have one and are, therefore, incapable of infringing on anyone's rights. The company is the humans who operate it.And then show me the birth certificate for Weyland inc.
I was looking for a legal cite.
That sound so much like John Kerry. Businesses most certainly do have right,...but I agree technically they don't have rights. Which is it?
I merely stated the employer has rights, that being the person making the decision and having the authority to barter salary for labor.
What's the danger? There's a real and existing danger in your POV. It's why we have such screwed up ADA rules that force companies to continuing salaries for people who, through their own stupidity, are no longer able to perform a job. It's why we have to hire minorities over more qualified non-minorities simply because they're minorities without any regard to qualifications.
What's the danger of my POV? That a bigoted employer will go out of business because a) he can't find people to work for him and b) he loses business because he's bigoted. I don't see the danger to the employee. Well, they may actually be motivated to engage in healthier lifestyles because they want to remain employed...but, other than that...
Again, you're off point. The employer is not saying what they can do in ther private life just that they won't employ them if they have certain unhealthy behaviors. It's a business decision.
And, about your second point; drinking is legal. Should a police officer be allowed to operate a bar in his off hours? Porn is legal. Should a church be forced to continue employing a pastor that operates an adult book store on his off days? Should the National Association of Non-Smokers be forced to employ a smoker?
Then they should conduct themselves in a manner tha will insure continued employment, if they're that dependent. Other, not so dependent, can quit and go find a job where the boss isn't so picky.
Okay, I'm through talking about the interference part. They're not dictating what an employee can do when they're not at work. They're just stating they won't employee people who do certain things. It's not unlike a Church saying they won't employee a porn star as Church Administrator. It's called choice.
Now, the minute you want to take responsibility for a company meeting its bottom line, its production goals, and its operational objectives -- then you should have a say in how they run the business. Until then, quit smoking or go find another job...it's your choice.
If that behavior could affect, through a contractual relationship, the loss of your life, liberty, or property (through higher insurance premiums say), yep, you'd have a right to know. How else could you make an informed employment decision?
Could I lie? Sure. But, you might want to do lab tests to verify whether or not I smoked. Could I refuse? Absolutely. But, I'm betting that'd be a violation of my terms of employment that could be cause for termination.
No, you don't. But you do have the right to make an employment decision based on factors that you know which may cause your costs of doing business to be higher. So, while you don't have the right to tell me how much exercise I must perform every week, you do have the right not to employ me if I'm unhealthy and at risk of likely driving your cost of doing business up.
Why not?
Which is just a collection of people with a common business enterprise. The person doing the hiring and firing is a proxy for owners or stockholders not the building.
First, I've never claimed to be a Republican and don't consider myself one. Second, governments have never been good at protecting individuals. It's too costly and people fall through the cracks. Government should be fostering an atmosphere where people can take care of themselves and where they are treated equal, under the law. And, provide for a common defense, deal with other goverments on our behalf and such...That's a rather broad interpretation of the government for one who is a Republican...I think it's purpose is much simpler than that. It is to protect the people, from external threats, from internal threats and sometimes from itself.
I agree. But, I don't see where anyone is making an uncons utional request, demand or ultimatum in this instance.
One more thing, and possibly my last post on the topic as I believe we have exhausted our arguments and are in danger of just repeating ourselves endlessly.
You stated that some people are dependent on their jobs and I won't argue that. However, being dependent on something doesn't mean you have a right to it.
We're dependent on food but we can't just walk into a grocery store and take what we want...unless we own the store. Of course, we could grow our own and not be dependent on others.
Many of us are dependent on gasoline or diesel or ethanol or vegetable oil (or whatever people use nowadays) to fuel our cars so we can get to the job upon which we're also dependent but, that doesn't mean we can just pull up to the pump and fill 'er up without paying...again, unless we own the pump.
Under your premise, food, medicine, fuel, shelter, and clothing should be free because we're dependent on them to survive.
When you take a job, you enter into a contract with the employer in which you agree to provide a function in exchange for a salary. The employer gets to say what qualifications you must have in order to perform that function and get paid; it doesn't matter if you think the qualifications are germain to the job -- it's not your job, it's the employers. If the boss says you can't have red hair, wear blue shirts, or smoke if you want to continue in relationship with the employer for pay, then redheads had better buy some dye, ditch the blue shirts and quit smoking -- or -- find another job.
It's that simple.
Of course, you've never asked me if I agree with the employer. And, quite frankly, I'd have to be convinced that smokers were costing me a whole lot before I ins uted such a policy. But, that's not what we're arguing about.
I pretty much agree with this...different interpretation of the grey area of the cons ution and what a corporation is.
No, I just don't think you should be denied those things because you smoke or are fat....etc.Under your premise, food, medicine, fuel, shelter, and clothing should be free because we're dependent on them to survive.
I agree...what you don't agree to do, and what you shouldn't have to do, or even consider, is make a lifestyle change that should be none of your employers affair.When you take a job, you enter into a contract with the employer in which you agree to provide a function in exchange for a salary.
An employer should have total say over what goes on in the place of employment...he should have no say over what you wear at home...The employer gets to say what qualifications you must have in order to perform that function and get paid; it doesn't matter if you think the qualifications are germain to the job -- it's not your job, it's the employers. If the boss says you can't have red hair, wear blue shirts, or smoke if you want to continue in relationship with the employer for pay, then redheads had better buy some dye, ditch the blue shirts and quit smoking -- or -- find another job.
It's that simple.
If you want to wear blue shirts at home, I think it's reasonable to say that you should be able to do that.
Well to me it is...to me it's the same thing as saying all blacks are dumber than whites..so therefore I am not going to give them a job that is thought intensive...Of course, you've never asked me if I agree with the employer. And, quite frankly, I'd have to be convinced that smokers were costing me a whole lot before I ins uted such a policy. But, that's not what we're arguing about.
Not only does it go against the spirit under which this country was formed...it's also a very foolish mindset, it's meant to make a fool of it's prac ioners...it's meant to be proved wrong...as it has been time and time again.
No one is talking about denying you those things, we're talking about denying you a job because you smoke or are fat.
No one is telling you to make a lifestyle change. They're saying, I'm not going to hire you unless you make a lifestyle change. The choice is clearly your's to make.
I'm not saying they should have any say in your personal life; just that they should be able to consider the consequences of your personal decisions in their employment decisions.
For instance, (and this is somewhat off the point), if a Dell Employee wants to wear a "Dell Sucks" t-shirt 16/7 (minus the 8 hours at work), should that be okay? Wouldn't it make him suspect for corporate sabotage or other stuff that wouldn't be good for Dell while he's on the clock? On second thought, this is germain to the discussion. If I was Michael Dell and I encountered an employee, off duty, who was wearing a "Dell Sucks!," t-shirt, I'd fire him based on my belief that a person who felt that way about his employer couldn't be the most productive or best suited for the job. Therefore, if I as an employer believe smokers aren't the most productive or best suited for a job in my company, I should be free to fire them as well.
And if I, as an employer and the owner of the money that will be paid out to you in salary, don't like blue shirts or the people who wear them, I should be able to discriminate and hire a red-shirt wearer over you. Blue-shirt wearers aren't a protected class. Neither are smokers or fat people.
No, it's not. First, I don't believe that to be true...but, going with the premise. Black people are black because of an "accident of birth" (<< Legal term of art, not an opinion as to it being "accidental".). Smokers smoke because they choose to smoke. And, dumb, well it's pretty equally spread across the racial spectrum.
But, you know what, I believe private employers and publicly held companies should be able to discriminate on any basis, even race. If a company wants to be bigoted, that's their choice...it's their company, their assets, and their business to run into the ground any way they see fit. I know I wouldn't do business with a racist or sexist company. But, the jobs belong to the employer and, in private business, no one should be en led to a job without the consent and agreement of the employer and he should be free to mete out those jobs any way he wants to.
I agree. And, I believe a company that discriminates based on things over which a potential employee has no control, (i.e. race, sex, ethnicity, some handicaps, national origin, etc...) has no business being in business and I wish them a speedy bankruptcy. But, that doesn't mean they don't have the right to be stupid... But, the things we're talking about, you do have control over, smoking is a choice and obesity (for the most part) is a result of poor lifestyle choices.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
