Posted on 01/27/2005 12:32:27 PM PST by proud American in Canada
The last thing on earth I would like to see is adding using tobacco products added to the ADA.
I don't lke the policies of this company, so I won't apply for employment, nor do business with it, however it is a private business decision and not a government edict, thus I defend their right to do it.
If this were a government agency or government edict, I would have an entirely different position.
What a disgustingly leftist way of thinking.
While I like your position, I must disagree with you. Have you looked at the classified ads lately? "smokers need not apply" is a rather common phrase in help wanted ads in any employment-at-will state. No one has to like the policy, but it is legal.
"Sorry, proud, this cretin can certainly, legally, fire any employee for things done in their off time if it's against company policy."
For the moment.
The problem is that this sort of power "exists" until someone really tries to use it and that becomes known.
Then the democracy or the judiciary make sure that nobody else can, legally, fire employees for, say, smoking in their off time whether it's against company policy or not, without a compelling reason.
Folks who are standing up for this employer are just begging for government regulators and courts to step in here and hammer down another hard, fast, expensive rule limiting employers.
Employment-at-will is a right. Any right can be abused. Firing smokers for smoking off duty in their own homes, or heavy people, is an abuse of that right. Now that it has the public's attention, there will be litigation and legislation, and ilico presto, we'll discover that no, the employer really DIDN'T have the right to do that.
It would be a great deal easier, and better for everyone, if this employer were urged to back down and stop this NOW, before we start getting court decisions and government mandates that take away more than just employers' ability to fire smokers and the overweight. Once lawmaking crashes into gear, things generally don't turn out very well.
All that can be avoided if business will agree, as a common-sense principle, that employment-at-will just doesn't go this far, that what this guy has done is an abuse.
Unfortunately, I see that there are folks who want to defend this.
So, we're going to end up with regulation, and judicial fiats, that create all sorts of new liabilities for employers.
There is a time when the wise back down.
And this is it, on this issue.
Again we find ourselves in agreement.
To protect smokers using the ADA you would have to accept the "addict as victim" argument that smokers do not smoke by choice. Of course smoking is a choice. Each and every cigarette I smoke is a choice. It may not be a wise choice, but it is a choice.
Below are two articles showing examples of the growing trend by
employers refusing to hire smokers. Hopefully, from these clear
cases of discrimination, the states not already protected will prompt
state legislatures to adopt "lifestyle" (smokers rights) statutes
too.
First, employer discrimination against smokers in Michigan is causing
anger among employment lawyers.
"To have an employer monitor legal behavior is going over a line that
we just can't cross. It's going toward that Big Brother mentality
that we just need to stay away from," asserted Joni Thome, an
employment attorney at Halunen & Associates in Minneapolis who hopes
the recent Michigan policy prompts state legislatures to adopt
lifestyle statutes.
Michigan is one of 21 states that do not have such laws. Others
include California, Florida, Ohio and Texas.
The 29 states that do have smokers' rights statutes, also known
as "lifestyle rights laws," which prohibit employers from
discriminating against smokers are Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut,
Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, West Virginia, Virginia, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee,
Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri,
Oklahoma, South Dakota, North Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico,
Arizona, Nevada and Oregon.
# # #
Also, in Florida the police departments in Bayonet Point, Dade City,
Port Richey, Zephyrhills, Brandon, Plant City, Tampa and Ybor City
will no longer hire smokers.
"Hillsborough County Sheriff David Gee and Pasco County Sheriff Bob
White won't hire people who are smokers, cigar users or tobacco
chewers, even if they only indulge when off-duty. Sworn deputies
already on the force will be encouraged to toss their Marlboros and
Camels whenever on duty and in public."
I could not agree with you more!!!!!!!
The last thing on earth needed are more laws and regulations. This guy made a business decision, a bad one IMO, but a business decision anyway. Let the market and current or future employees show that to him...........not the government.
If you have not see Gattica (a movie) I suggest that
you do.
Now that folks are losing their jobs over this and it has national attention, that may change. Abuse of rights and privileges can go on for a long time, until folks begin to stand up and assert their power.
We may not be headed for the confrontation on this, yet, but this Michigan case is the first baldfaced example that has ever come to my attention of people actually being FIRED for smoking off duty.
The public may not have noticed this before, but it does now.
If I were a betting man, I would bet that employers are not going to have their wings clipped.
I don't know if this Michigan case will be the start, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was.
Of course, I could be misreading this. It could be that there is so much bitterness and hatred towards smoking, in particular, that the democracy WON'T react forcefully to discrimination against smoking.
And it could be that general public disgust for fat people will make it such that the democracy won't react forcefully to discrimination against them either.
It will be interesting to see, then, what happens if some strict Baptist company down South fires everyone who drinks alcohol in their off duty time, using identical logic. At that point there will be a backlash, because prohibitions on drinking are, of course, something that religious right-wingers would do, and that might bring in the ACLU.
The better solution is for business types and chambers of commerce to stand up and say that this sort of meddling in private lives is not good for business.
It may be that nobody cares enough about smokers or fat people, drinkers, folks who surf for internet porn (presumably the employer could insist on installing a monitor on a home computer as a condition of employment), motorcycle riders, or really whatever other sort of private behavior that bothers some puritanical boss to do anything about it.
I merely observe that people most certainly COULD shut this nonsense down if they wanted to. A judge and jury could assess penalties on a variety of theories. Laws could be passed that restrict these sorts of things, so that employers can't do it anymore, etc.
Yes, it is the last thing on earth we need, more rules and regulations and government.
Therefore, employers have got to exercise self-restraint. What this guy has done is not just a bad decision, it is an abuse. Now, either he'll stop it, or laws will have to be enacted so that he and others CAN'T do that any more.
What doesn't fly very long is abuse that is unanswered. Because then other's copy it.
It looks like smoking will have to become another "protected right" in more states, like it is in 29 already. Pathetic that it has to come to this. Employers ought to be reasonable and not indulge in this sort of overreach.
I disagree with you. Respecting his right to make this policy decision, no matter how idiotic we may think it to be, is what will keep government regulators out of the issue.
When he can't hire good workers because he doesn't want smokers or the obese and others stop using his services because of this idiocy he'll learn his lesson.
The free market, not government or activist judges, should be the regulator in this case.
If it were only that unpopular things are forced out,
then what's up with the homo-thing? And cross-dressing?
I'm sure they wake up and decide what clothes to put
on and that's a choice. It is protected by law in some
outa the way places.
I don't think it would work, because although drugs are addictive, they can disqualify you for a job if you test positive on a drug test. So in that sense, it might be cittung off your nose to spite your face.
The problems that arrise as I see it, is while much more dangerous behvior is rewarded and even protected, liberals want to limit sactions, and inflict unfair taxes against, a small group who practice a behavior that is perfectly legal.
It really gets to me, when in this day and age, we have to fight for the right to live our lives and raise our kids, as law abiding, hard working, moral citizens. That is butt backwards!! (pun intended)
Thanks! That certainly contained what I was looking for!
This is a "conservative" forum.
The word conservative means to "conserve" something.
I would assume that conservatives wish to conserve the covenants of the U.S. Constitution.
That being the case, why would any "conservative" and/or "Freeper" advocate an unconstitutional expansion of an unconstitutional federal law?
The ADA is unconstitutional because it clearly, unambigously, violates Amendment V:
"nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 98963 JEREMIAH W. (JAY) NIXON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI, et al., PETITIONERS v. SHRINK MISSOURI GOVERNMENT PAC et al.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT [January 24, 2000]
Justice Stevens, concurring.
"I make one simple point. Money is property;"
Enforcement and implementation of the ADA requirements takes money from private property owners.
For the ADA law to be constitutional, taxpayer's are require to compensate private property owners for the money needed to line the parking lot for disabled, alter doors and add ramps for disable, etc.
In addition, the jurisdiction of the ADA law is dubious as well.
Federal jurisdiction within the boundaries of sovereign state for regulation of business is always assumed to be the "commerce clause."
Article I, Section 8, Cl 3:
"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes:"
How did a private property owned business become either a "foreign nation(s)...state(s)...Indian tribe(s)?
As private property owner of a small business I make the rules. If you wish to work for me you abide by the rules or take a hike.
And if I think that your lifestyle outside of my business is detrimental to my business and thus require you not to participate in certain lifestyle behaviors or lose your job, that is my call and my call only.
That is what "Free(per)" do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.