Just get it over with and make it illegal.

trappedinmyradio

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

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.

trappedinmyradio

soulsinging wrote:

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.

farfromglorified

soulsinging wrote:

should we allow slavery?

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.

RainDog

trappedinmyradio wrote:

yes, but corporations still have rights in terms of the way they run their business and how they spend their money.

Perhaps a universal system of healthcare would help the situation.

farfromglorified

soulsinging wrote:

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.

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

Perhaps a universal system of healthcare would help the situation.

How? By making those same corporations pay an even bigger bureaucracy for their employee's health care?

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

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.

soulsinging

trappedinmyradio wrote:

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.

chromiam

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....

1970RR

chromiam wrote:

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.

know1

farfromglorified wrote:

How? By making those same corporations pay an even bigger bureaucracy for their employee's health care?

Exactly. The biggest problem with health insurance and healthcare costs is the lack of competition.

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

Of course there is. Shop locally. Shop small.

And if there's nothing small or local?

farfromglorified wrote:

Go to a third, of course.

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?

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

I never said it would.

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

How? By making those same corporations pay an even bigger bureaucracy for their employee's health care?

Employers are already paying insurance companies, which fall under the regulation of the government anyway. Might as well eliminate the middle man.

inmytree

chromiam wrote:

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...

chromiam

1970RR wrote:

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.

1970RR

chromiam wrote:

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.

seagoat2

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

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.

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

Employers are already paying insurance companies, which fall under the regulation of the government anyway. Might as well eliminate the middle man.

Umm....the government would still be a middle man. The last time I checked, they weren't actually providing medical services.

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

Umm....the government would still be a middle man. The last time I checked, they weren't actually providing medical services.

Some middle men, then. Plus, the burden would fall on all taxpayers and not just the company. It's likely overall costs for everyone would go down.

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

And if there's nothing small or local?

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.