Posted on 01/27/2005 12:32:27 PM PST by proud American in Canada
I meant if for all those who depend on the nanny state to take care of them.
As I read Vicomte's post, it had nothing to do with state law. It had to do with activist judges creating new causes of action against employers out of thin air, regardless of whether or not there is a law on the books.
I'm scratching my head to figure out why some apparently consider that a conservative position....
They also may be able to get better rates if employees were prohibited from drinking, riding motorcycles, skydiving, shoveling snow, allowing their cholesterol to get too high, getting pregnant, .... (add your own activity that may raise medical insurance costs)
The biggest work related medical cost in the U.S. is work-related stress.
Very logical, elegant argument! As others have said: The law of unintended consequences.
Read this several times because it is good, tested advice. Smoking is now classified as a disease. Forced withdrawl from cigarettes (which the Government admits is a "nicotine delivery system) could lead to clinically significant depression and, eventually, to suicidal ideation. Forced reduction in body weight through radical changes in eating habits could also result in similar symptoms. Weyco employees, first, last and always, should not resign. Do not be trapped into insubordination while you plot to assasinate this jerk. Employees should lay a goundwork by attempting to comply with company policy and then seek professional medical and psychological assistance as their attempts at behavior modification fail. Never resign and keep a diary. Keep careful records of all communications from all agencies. When employees are pink slipped, they should immediately claim disability based on serious depression deliberately brought about through the actions of their employer. It is very important to list the onset of your disability while you were on your employer's payroll. Their states of depression may well last forever and prevent them from seeking further employment. Their disabilities will not be partial but will be 100% total. Go to the library and check out the DSM4; your symptoms, signs and phobias will be there in neat lists. Collect unemployment while your disability claim is processed although you will be unable to function at your new jobs. Expect your first disability claim to be denied (they all are). Keep appealing. Document, document, document. You will win eventually. Your employer will have to pay your unemployment and part of your permanent, lifetime disability benefits. (If he has any brains he'll realize that it's cheaper to accomodate your smoking habit and eating preferences.) In addition, you'll have bulletproof tenure forever once he's forced to take you back or shoulder your expenses for life. You must have confidence that you have this guy by the cojones. His heart and mind will follow.
We fight with the weapons we have. Sometimes ones which we pick up on the battlefield.
We fight with the weapons we find lying around the battlefield. If you threaten me with your rapier, I'm just as likely to bite off a piece of your ear. (For you, I change my tagline. Maybe you'll recognize it . . . or you can look it up.)
Smoking isn't a disability, it's a choice until you get your cancer or something.
I think where this is going is that the private company will give a sum (maybe $250) a month for you policy and that is it.
If you get a $70 policy, you pocket $180. If your smoking or prior condition costs you $500 a month, you have to kick in another $250 of your own and that is it.
The only issue I read there is the employer is in a current pool of insurance and the smokers are raising the hell out of the premiums. So instead of firing them, limit the financial contribution to the insurance and be done with it.
Yep, give them an amount and if it costs more, they can look elsewhere for their own insurance or can pay more for it.
A very good, common sense approach. Which, of course, is why it will never fly...LOL!
Great post.
I'm not defending this. I'm, just pointing out that, as it is, this is legal.
With the way smokers are demonized at this point in time, I don't see the government stepping in to do anything about this.
If the government is willing to let business owners close their doors due to smoking bans, what makes you think government will take any different stand on this? Just because it's an employee that's taking the hit instead of the business owner?
Employment-at-will is a right.
???????? I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
Employment, of any kind, is not a right. No one HAS to hire you for ANY type of job.
I agree completely that it would be better for the owner to back down and allow employees that were currently working to be grandfathered and only new hires have to adhere to the new policy. But, that's the decision of the business owner at this point.
If he wants to take it to court there's not a whole lot anyone can do at this point.
I just don't think the ADA is an option for this type of action.
Of course you have my permission.
I believe in what I wrote.
I was irritated that the response of some folks was "The government has no right to regulate or pass any laws here."
BWAHAHAHAHAHAA...
Guys, sorry, smoking is not a protected class and never has been.... nice reaching for straws though.
Many people defend property rights when it suits their needs but turn around and argue against property rights when it suits their needs. The government has no business regulating smoking in a business.
No person is forced to be a customer or employee and each is free to say no and leave or not enter. The business has the same right. It can open the door to a person or tell a customer or employee to leave. A customer, employee and business can refuse the other for any reason or no reason.
A customer doesn't have to give a reason why it chooses not to patronize a particular business. An employee doesn't have to give a reason why they chose to leave a particular business. A business doesn't have to give a reason why they chose to tell a customer or employee to leave.
Apparently an irrational thought process causes some people to think that businesses don't have the right to tell a person to leave the business.
Some people seek the strong arm of government and legal actions to violate property rights and free association.
Unfortunately, most people don't understand that the issue is property rights and free association so they argue almost everything but The Point.
The Point: protect and defend property rights and free association.
"As I read Vicomte's post, it had nothing to do with state law. It had to do with activist judges creating new causes of action against employers out of thin air, regardless of whether or not there is a law on the books."
What I said does have to do with state law.
29 states have passed laws that specifically prohibit employers from doing this sort of thing.
Michigan is not among them, but there may be existing precepts of Michigan law, existing court cases and interpretations of employment contracts up there that make what the employer has done here suspect.
Remember, the Common Law, which we so often praise, has never been primarily made by legislatures but by judges applying general principles of law to a specific case. The whole law of contracts started out as judge-made law. It still hasn't been codified in many respects.
I am not looking to create new causes of action out of thin air. What I am doing is trying to figure out a reasonable conservative response to something outrageous that an employer has done that has Michigan all abuzz, and has now hit the national airwaves as well.
Among those 21 states that don't have specific laws protecting private life from employer intrusion, there probably will be some that pass such laws based on this particular incident, if it continues to get press coverage and other employers follow suit.
I don't think that states deciding democratically to pass laws or not is a conservative or liberal issue - the content of the law determines that. Whether it's the state that passes the law, or the feds is, I think, a federalist/conservative issue. And I would expect conservatives and federalists to think that this ought to be left to the states to decide, and not think it outrageous that 29 states have decided that this sort of employer over-reach is for the birds.
Perhaps the best solution would be for the people of Michigan to get agitated enough about this to pass a law shielding private life from employer retaliation before any sort of legal action against the employer gets underway. In this way the legislature can make the law and not leave it up to the courts.
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.