In your campaign to rid the world of government, you'll simply be replacing them with businesses - who will then make the "laws" and force you to comply simply for employment. Only in that case, they'll be no more vote.
Pass laws to restrict the rights of companies. Otherwise, companies will "pass" laws by proxy to restrict the rights of citizens.
This is probably the only place where our votes actually do count. If you don't like the way a company is run don't work for them or if your a consumer stop spending your money on them. That would silence them pretty quickly.
The "vote with your wallet" approach has it's advantages, and currently the man might simply be able to "find another job." However, in the world of conglomeration, a modern day when many corporations have become larger than any other business ventures in history, and can steamroll smaller competetors out of existance, those options become less viable.
And before anyone accuses me of rampant pinko paranoia, I'm not saying this is the case yet. However, if this company wins, others may follow suit. What if it becomes standard American practice that companies do not hire smokers (or whatever the "undesirable of the day" happens to be)? Sure, you'd legally be allowed to smoke, but you wouldn't be able to find work anywhere. Hell, in some cases, no laws would be necessary.
It's sad that this guy will win his lawsuit. This company should have every right to fire him for smoking, regardless of whether or not it was done on company time.
should companies also be allowed to fire people for being black? obese? gay?
The "vote with your wallet" approach has it's advantages, and currently the man might simply be able to "find another job." However, in the world of conglomeration, a modern day when many corporations have become larger than any other business ventures in history, and can steamroll smaller competetors out of existance, those options become less viable.
Yes. Therefore, people should vote with their wallets against congolmeration.
And before anyone accuses me of rampant pinko paranoia, I'm not saying this is the case yet. However, if this company wins, others may follow suit. What if it becomes standard American practice that companies do not hire smokers (or whatever the "undesirable of the day" happens to be)? Sure, you'd legally be allowed to smoke, but you wouldn't be able to find work anywhere. Hell, in some cases, no laws would be necessary.
First, one's only means of employment is not to seek it from someone else. Secondly, as long as there is a diverse set of employers it's unlikely that each one will simply refuse to hire "undesirables" because the cost of someone's habits doesn't necessarily exceed the benefits of the employee. I have an employee that smokes and weighs about 400 lbs. His insurance costs me a small fortune. But he's a great employee, so I have no problems paying the premium for his choices.
Hello RainDog, it's nice to see someone who will hijack threads for me, rather than forcing me do it myself
My campaign is not to "rid the world of government". My campaign is to rid the world of unearned authority.
that is the issue here. certain entities have disproportionate power due solely to money. they did not earn their authority, they strong armed the competition into taking it. a bully who beats up a 3rd grader for lunch money did not "earn" that money, he took it. the purpose of government is to protect its citizens from abuse by others who are in a position to take advantage of them.
know1 is the most spot on answer here. the health insurance system we have is fucking ridiculous. the only person it helps is insurance company. it makes things more expensive for everyone else.
that is the issue here. certain entities have disproportionate power due solely to money. they did not earn their authority, they strong armed the competition into taking it.
So they stole that money?
a bully who beats up a 3rd grader for lunch money did not "earn" that money, he took it. the purpose of government is to protect its citizens from abuse by others who are in a position to take advantage of them.
So corporations that largely earn their money from free exchange with citizens and other corporations are the bully, but the government that earns its money from forced taxation is the protector? Interesting logic.
know1 is the most spot on answer here. the health insurance system we have is fucking ridiculous. the only person it helps is insurance company. it makes things more expensive for everyone else.
Yes. Therefore, people should vote with their wallets against congolmeration.
There is no way to vote against conglomeration with your wallet. Therefore, it's best to vote for politicians and laws that do not allow conglomeration (within reason, of course). What do you do if you try to boycott a company by going to another - only to find it owned by the same conglomeration?
There's also the simple idea of worker's rights. While smoking bans may seem trite when compared to the labor movement, I'll bring it up anyway. Could early industrial workers have brought about change by voting with their wallets?
Secondly, as long as there is a diverse set of employers it's unlikely that each one will simply refuse to hire "undesirables" because the cost of someone's habits doesn't necessarily exceed the benefits of the employee.
As long as there is a diverse set of employers. How do you guarantee that this will always be the case?
I have an employee that smokes and weighs about 400 lbs. His insurance costs me a small fortune. But he's a great employee, so I have no problems paying the premium for his choices.
So corporations that largely earn their money from free exchange with citizens and other corporations are the bully, but the government that earns its money from forced taxation is the protector? Interesting logic.
I can get on board with that as well.
i see corporations and government as bullies to an equal degree. thus why i believe in checks on both. i dont think government should be allowed to tell you what you can do in your home. i dont think your employer should be able to as well. corporations are not people, they do not enjoy the same rights as individual citizens. they are partnerships, like a government. as such, they are subject to certain restrictions and limitations on the power they can wield over individual, private citizens and their rights.
The lawn care company had adopted a new policy of not hiring workers who use tobacco products. The intent is to reduce employee health care costs. The legal question, however, revolves around whether it's discriminatory to fire someone for doing something on their own time that's legal, but against company policy.
people can smoke on their own property all they want - they can actually have smoking parties...but, they are asking someone ELSE to employ them. insurance companies are making it so expensive to hire smokers because of the inherent risk associated with smoking. companies should employ people who smoke and let them insure themselves if they choose, or give them a flat montly rate toward insurance.
i see corporations and government as bullies to an equal degree. thus why i believe in checks on both. i dont think government should be allowed to tell you what you can do in your home. i dont think your employer should be able to as well. corporations are not people, they do not enjoy the same rights as individual citizens. they are partnerships, like a government. as such, they are subject to certain restrictions and limitations on the power they can wield over individual, private citizens and their rights.
yes, but corporations still have rights in terms of the way they run their business and how they spend their money.
No. Slavery violates the will of the worker by not offering him any choice as an agent.
Free exchange between two parties has a requirement that both may assess the value of a proposition independently and accept or reject a deal based on their own standards. An employer who deems that employees must not smoke is not a slavedriver until he attempts to have his cake and eat it too, so to speak, by forcing the employee to quit smoking without giving the employee the option to leave. Same goes for the employee as well. He becomes a slavedriver the instant he believes he can have hs cake and eat it too by forcing the employer to assess his value on his own standards, rather than the employer's.
i mean, if they dont like it, they can run away and take their chances right?
Theoretically, sure. But that doesn't in any way justify enslavement. The very fact that they'd have to "run away" is the difference. If the employee in this example had quit and then had been captured by the company and forced back into employment, then the analogy would be true. Otherwise, it makes no sense.
i see corporations and government as bullies to an equal degree.
Equal how? Based on what standard?
thus why i believe in checks on both.
Apparently you believe in additional checks on corporations. Not only market forces but governmental forces as well. Should corporations have the right to amass guns and fine/imprison politicians, since both are "equal"?
i dont think government should be allowed to tell you what you can do in your home.
Me neither. However, if I enter into a contract with my government where they pay me in exchange for services, that government should certainly have the right to assess the values of the benefits of my service.
i dont think your employer should be able to as well.
Then don't work for one that does.
corporations are not people, they do not enjoy the same rights as individual citizens. they are partnerships, like a government.
Corporations are partnerships of what? Also, how can a government that assumes an authority over me the instant I am born, without considering any will I might have in the matter, my "partner"?
as such, they are subject to certain restrictions and limitations on the power they can wield over individual, private citizens and their rights.
Yes they are and they should be subject to restrictions on their ability to affect other people's rights! Based on your standards here though, we'll have to place a lot of restrictions on your ability to quit your job.
There is no way to vote against conglomeration with your wallet.
Of course there is. Shop locally. Shop small.
Therefore, it's best to vote for politicians and laws that do not allow conglomeration (within reason, of course). What do you do if you try to boycott a company by going to another - only to find it owned by the same conglomeration?
Go to a third, of course.
There's also the simple idea of worker's rights. While smoking bans may seem trite when compared to the labor movement, I'll bring it up anyway. Could early industrial workers have brought about change by voting with their wallets?
Most definitely. They simply chose to use their guns instead because that was easier.
It is for most people, though - and every company needs employees. An economy where everyone owned their own business wouldn't work.
No, it wouldn't work. An economy where everyone thought that they needed someone else to create a job for them wouldn't work either.
As long as there is a diverse set of employers. How do you guarantee that this will always be the case?
By living in a manner that ensures competition, of course. Do not impose rules and regulations that limit the competitive environment. Do not spend your money or labor unwisely with firms who seek to dominate you.
yes, but corporations still have rights in terms of the way they run their business and how they spend their money.
but these rights cease to exist once you walk out the door. where does it stop? workers have to live in corporate communes with rounded corners to ensure no one ever gets injured?
funny how eager they are to cut down on health costs, but ask them to have certain safety measures in place to protect workers and suddenly the worker's health seems so trivial.
Goes back to a question someone posed early and which was glossed over... if I participate in a physical sport or activity on my own time (rockclimbing, mountain biking, skiing, hockey, etc) can a company fire me for that behavior??? On one hand I am exercising and keeping myself healthy but I'm also subjecting myself to potential and substantial injuries which will inflate health care costs at the same time....
This is your notice that there is a problem with your signature. Please remove it.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
Goes back to a question someone posed early and which was glossed over... if I participate in a physical sport or activity on my own time (rockclimbing, mountain biking, skiing, hockey, etc) can a company fire me for that behavior??? On one hand I am exercising and keeping myself healthy but I'm also subjecting myself to potential and substantial injuries which will inflate health care costs at the same time....
Arent there professional athletes with these type of clauses in their contracts? I would assume that if you knew the requirement prior to working, then yes, you could be fired.
And if the third is also owned by the same outfit - or perhaps just another large one that functions the same way? Go to a fourth? Fifth? What if it doesn't exist?
Most definitely. They simply chose to use their guns instead because that was easier.
That's not what happened at all. The free market isn't some magic salve that will cure all ills - anymore than a total state controlled economy. Balance is the key. The labor movement was the proper course - not the easiest.
By living in a manner that ensures competition, of course. Do not impose rules and regulations that limit the competitive environment. Do not spend your money or labor unwisely with firms who seek to dominate you.
And if there's no competition? I know, I know - start one. But that's not always (or usually) feasible. That's why we have laws against monopolies. I suppose you don't support those, either.
Goes back to a question someone posed early and which was glossed over... if I participate in a physical sport or activity on my own time (rockclimbing, mountain biking, skiing, hockey, etc) can a company fire me for that behavior??? On one hand I am exercising and keeping myself healthy but I'm also subjecting myself to potential and substantial injuries which will inflate health care costs at the same time....
good question...
I wonder, should a person be fired if they drink alcohol, which has health risks, or if they get a speeding ticket, again, bad juju...
what about a worker who is diagnosed with a life-threating illness...? why not cut that employee loose...? they're costing the company money...right..?
I bet hilter would have loved the "weed out the weak and unhealthly" mentality...
Arent there professional athletes with these type of clauses in their contracts? I would assume that if you knew the requirement prior to working, then yes, you could be fired.
professional athletes are paid to be athletes.... my company doesn't pay me to be physically active, I do it for my enjoyment.
This is your notice that there is a problem with your signature. Please remove it.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
professional athletes are paid to be athletes.... my company doesn't pay me to be physically active, I do it for my enjoyment.
Yes, but if they are sky-diving for their own enjoyment - they can be fired if it violates their contract. The same would apply to your job, if you knew ahead of time that sky-diving would get you fired.
I can see how the company wants to reduce healthcare costs, but this could open the floodgates for other weird terminations.
I agree - companies have a right to want to reduce thier health care costs, but what about obesity & other conditions? When you start dictating what your employees can & can't do - especially if it's legal, it sets a dangerous precedent.
Should they tell all thier employees thay can't drink off the job either? What about sky diving/rock climbing/bungee jumping, etc. in your spare time?
I'm not sure I'd want to work for a company that spies on my personal life.
That's unlikely. But if that was case, there would certainly be a market of those who wished for something "small and local".
And if the third is also owned by the same outfit - or perhaps just another large one that functions the same way? Go to a fourth? Fifth? What if it doesn't exist?
Then start a sixth.
That's not what happened at all. The free market isn't some magic salve that will cure all ills - anymore than a total state controlled economy. Balance is the key. The labor movement was the proper course - not the easiest.
I never said the free market was magic. The beauty of it is that it's not magic. It operates on very tangible and real principles.
And if there's no competition? I know, I know - start one. But that's not always (or usually) feasible. That's why we have laws against monopolies. I suppose you don't support those, either.
Certainly it's not always "feasible". And no, I don't support laws against monopolies, particularly when they're enforced by an actual monopoly known as government.
Comments
This is probably the only place where our votes actually do count. If you don't like the way a company is run don't work for them or if your a consumer stop spending your money on them. That would silence them pretty quickly.
And before anyone accuses me of rampant pinko paranoia, I'm not saying this is the case yet. However, if this company wins, others may follow suit. What if it becomes standard American practice that companies do not hire smokers (or whatever the "undesirable of the day" happens to be)? Sure, you'd legally be allowed to smoke, but you wouldn't be able to find work anywhere. Hell, in some cases, no laws would be necessary.
should companies also be allowed to fire people for being black? obese? gay?
Certainly.
Yes. Therefore, people should vote with their wallets against congolmeration.
First, one's only means of employment is not to seek it from someone else. Secondly, as long as there is a diverse set of employers it's unlikely that each one will simply refuse to hire "undesirables" because the cost of someone's habits doesn't necessarily exceed the benefits of the employee. I have an employee that smokes and weighs about 400 lbs. His insurance costs me a small fortune. But he's a great employee, so I have no problems paying the premium for his choices.
that is the issue here. certain entities have disproportionate power due solely to money. they did not earn their authority, they strong armed the competition into taking it. a bully who beats up a 3rd grader for lunch money did not "earn" that money, he took it. the purpose of government is to protect its citizens from abuse by others who are in a position to take advantage of them.
know1 is the most spot on answer here. the health insurance system we have is fucking ridiculous. the only person it helps is insurance company. it makes things more expensive for everyone else.
So they stole that money?
So corporations that largely earn their money from free exchange with citizens and other corporations are the bully, but the government that earns its money from forced taxation is the protector? Interesting logic.
I can get on board with that as well.
should we allow slavery? i mean, if they dont like it, they can run away and take their chances right?
There's also the simple idea of worker's rights. While smoking bans may seem trite when compared to the labor movement, I'll bring it up anyway. Could early industrial workers have brought about change by voting with their wallets?
It is for most people, though - and every company needs employees. An economy where everyone owned their own business wouldn't work. As long as there is a diverse set of employers. How do you guarantee that this will always be the case?
Cool.
i see corporations and government as bullies to an equal degree. thus why i believe in checks on both. i dont think government should be allowed to tell you what you can do in your home. i dont think your employer should be able to as well. corporations are not people, they do not enjoy the same rights as individual citizens. they are partnerships, like a government. as such, they are subject to certain restrictions and limitations on the power they can wield over individual, private citizens and their rights.
people can smoke on their own property all they want - they can actually have smoking parties...but, they are asking someone ELSE to employ them. insurance companies are making it so expensive to hire smokers because of the inherent risk associated with smoking. companies should employ people who smoke and let them insure themselves if they choose, or give them a flat montly rate toward insurance.
from my window to yours
yes, but corporations still have rights in terms of the way they run their business and how they spend their money.
from my window to yours
No. Slavery violates the will of the worker by not offering him any choice as an agent.
Free exchange between two parties has a requirement that both may assess the value of a proposition independently and accept or reject a deal based on their own standards. An employer who deems that employees must not smoke is not a slavedriver until he attempts to have his cake and eat it too, so to speak, by forcing the employee to quit smoking without giving the employee the option to leave. Same goes for the employee as well. He becomes a slavedriver the instant he believes he can have hs cake and eat it too by forcing the employer to assess his value on his own standards, rather than the employer's.
Theoretically, sure. But that doesn't in any way justify enslavement. The very fact that they'd have to "run away" is the difference. If the employee in this example had quit and then had been captured by the company and forced back into employment, then the analogy would be true. Otherwise, it makes no sense.
Equal how? Based on what standard?
Apparently you believe in additional checks on corporations. Not only market forces but governmental forces as well. Should corporations have the right to amass guns and fine/imprison politicians, since both are "equal"?
Me neither. However, if I enter into a contract with my government where they pay me in exchange for services, that government should certainly have the right to assess the values of the benefits of my service.
Then don't work for one that does.
Corporations are partnerships of what? Also, how can a government that assumes an authority over me the instant I am born, without considering any will I might have in the matter, my "partner"?
Yes they are and they should be subject to restrictions on their ability to affect other people's rights! Based on your standards here though, we'll have to place a lot of restrictions on your ability to quit your job.
How? By making those same corporations pay an even bigger bureaucracy for their employee's health care?
Of course there is. Shop locally. Shop small.
Go to a third, of course.
Most definitely. They simply chose to use their guns instead because that was easier.
No, it wouldn't work. An economy where everyone thought that they needed someone else to create a job for them wouldn't work either.
By living in a manner that ensures competition, of course. Do not impose rules and regulations that limit the competitive environment. Do not spend your money or labor unwisely with firms who seek to dominate you.
but these rights cease to exist once you walk out the door. where does it stop? workers have to live in corporate communes with rounded corners to ensure no one ever gets injured?
funny how eager they are to cut down on health costs, but ask them to have certain safety measures in place to protect workers and suddenly the worker's health seems so trivial.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
Exactly. The biggest problem with health insurance and healthcare costs is the lack of competition.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
And if the third is also owned by the same outfit - or perhaps just another large one that functions the same way? Go to a fourth? Fifth? What if it doesn't exist?
That's not what happened at all. The free market isn't some magic salve that will cure all ills - anymore than a total state controlled economy. Balance is the key. The labor movement was the proper course - not the easiest.
I never said it would.
And if there's no competition? I know, I know - start one. But that's not always (or usually) feasible. That's why we have laws against monopolies. I suppose you don't support those, either.
good question...
I wonder, should a person be fired if they drink alcohol, which has health risks, or if they get a speeding ticket, again, bad juju...
what about a worker who is diagnosed with a life-threating illness...? why not cut that employee loose...? they're costing the company money...right..?
I bet hilter would have loved the "weed out the weak and unhealthly" mentality...
professional athletes are paid to be athletes.... my company doesn't pay me to be physically active, I do it for my enjoyment.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
Umm....the government would still be a middle man. The last time I checked, they weren't actually providing medical services.
That's unlikely. But if that was case, there would certainly be a market of those who wished for something "small and local".
Then start a sixth.
I never said the free market was magic. The beauty of it is that it's not magic. It operates on very tangible and real principles.
Certainly it's not always "feasible". And no, I don't support laws against monopolies, particularly when they're enforced by an actual monopoly known as government.