"I could not agree more. What he's doing is totally outrageous and there has got to be a legal way to stop it cold."
Because if it is not stopped legally, it will certainly be stopped politically, and that means more laws and more regulations on ALL employers, because this ONE had to assert the power to supervise his employees' legal off-duty activities.
It's not a question of whether or not he should be able to.
He is not going to be allowed to be able to.
The only question is: do we make that real obvious right now, with a quick legal strike that sets an example?
Or do we let the employer dig in, end up giving the unions a LEGITIMATE cause to agitate about, energize the regulators, and energize the political base of people who want to regulate employers.
Employment-at-will no more means that an employer can tell you that you can't smoke in private off duty in your own house on your own time than "free speech" means you can scream obscenities at your boss and not be fired. This is just common sense, folks. The employer has none. And he should be hung out to dry by everyone on the right. This is the kind of guy who sets back the conservative movement by being an unreasonable jackass.
There is one thing I thought of regarding the regulation of off-duty conduct.
What if an employee started a "WeycoCompanySucks.com" website, on their own time, from their own PC, resulting in loss of reputation and financial damages to the company? Certainly that employee would be fired.
The only difference I can think of is that with the website scenario, the company's good will and reputation is damaged. But both the website and the smoking result in a poorer bottom line for the company.
ANYWAY.... as you say, if it can't be stopped legally in this case, it has to be stopped politically. It's outrageous.