"Why shouldn't an employer have the right to dictate who they hire, especially when smokers drive up the costs of health care benefits."
In theory I agree completely. It's just that I find it disturbing that an employer will regulate what a person does on his free time, especially when a lot of other activities could drive up health care costs.
And even people with underlying genetic conditions could be refused being hired by some companies, on the same theory.
A society is more productive when it has a healthy population, when people have their illnesses, whether it's the flu or breast cancer, taken care of in a timely manner.
Someone's got to pay for that. In the U.S., we've chosen private insurance paid for by the employer (and it's resulted in the best healthh care system in the world).
But what if, as science improves, employers start screening out for all kinds of potential illnesses, as Weyco did?
I suppose, left with an untenably shrinking workforce, businesses would have to relent, but still...
It's interesting to think about to say the least.
"Why shouldn't an employer have the right to dictate who they hire, especially when smokers drive up the costs of health care benefits."
In this particular case, the employees were already working there, then the employer changed the policy.
But the broader answer to your question is "democracy".
When I peruse the Bill of Rights, "employment-at-will" and "unregulated labor markets" do not appear there.
And they aren't going to appear there.
An employer does not have the right to intrude into people's legal activities in private, on their own property, during their off-duty hours, because he does not pay the employee for 24 hours of his time. The employer pays for 8 hours of time. And for that he gets 8 hours of control, not 24. Labor is a commodity. Another commodity is lumber. If I buy 8 tons of lumber for paper, I do not have the right to take 24 tons off the lumber truck and pay eight for it.
And with labor, it is particularly stupid to try, because workers are also voters. Nobody likes to have a boss, but we all serve someone. That's the way it is. Generally, employers are reasonable and fair. When they are not, and sometimes they are not...well, that's when new labor laws and regulations start cropping up.
Example: sexual harassment law. Now, time was when "employment at will" meant that if you wanted to work for my company, you had to put up with my crude sexual comments and innuendoes and come-ons all damned day. Because I had free speech, and you had no right to work for me. Therefore, I had the right to sexually harass you. That's unregulated free speech. And it didn't survive. Because when it comes right down to it, people will use their democratic power to limit free speech and nail sexually harassing employers to a cross. Democracy has more power than vague concepts like "it's my company, so I can do what I want". No, you can't. We can, in fact, regulate the hell out of you. We have. And we will again too, every time you go over the top and start pretending that you are a noble lord.
A noble lord had retainers whose lives he controlled.
But an employer has authority to the extent that he pays for it, for a specific purpose, and for a limited time.
Employers and folks with capital sometimes get it into their heads that their status OUGHT TO make them noble lords, able to demand whatever they want from their employees. And "employment-at-will" doctrine will protect them.
Except that it doesn't.
And it hasn't in America for a good 60 years now.
The old days where a private company was a private fief and the boss could say whatever he wanted and do whatever he wanted to his employees because it was his company are GONE.
And the REASON they're gone is because this right, employment at will, like any other right, carried with it the DUTY not to go too far.
Employers went too far.
And democracy supersedes employment at will doctrine.
There is not employer's authority amendment to the Constitution.
But there certainly will be laws and regulations imposed to stop employers from doing what this jerk in Michigan has done if all of that isn't headed off at the pass right now, quickly, and sanity restored.
Yes, smoking and overweight add some costs. But they just have to be borne. Employers are simply not going to get away with firing all smokers and heavy people. They can try, and do some of that now. And then the backlash will be the imposition of rules, regulations and laws that further limit employers so that they cannot do that.
It would be simpler, and better, if everyone toed up to the plate right now and said that the employer here has dreadfully abused the employment-at-will doctrine, and he be browbeaten into backing down. Because if he isn't, other employers will follow suit, and the democracy - even in a Republican country - will retaliate, and there will be a whole lot more laws and regulations on employers.
Standing up for this guy is self-defeating to the whole conservative cause. He is going to damage free enterprise here, not help it. Because democracy is going to bring the hammer down here if the business community doesn't self-police this sort of nonsense.
It's not a question of "if", but "when".
Employers do not have the right to fire people in regular clerical jobs for smoking off duty on their own time in their homes. They don't have the right to fire people for being a bit overweight. Right now, there is no LAW that tells them they can't, so apparently some fool in Michigan has decided he has that right.
And so that which SHOULD BE common sense and prudent self-regulation is going to end up as court orders and government imposed rules that make it clear that, no, employment-at-will does NOT go that far.
This is an unwinnable war.
And frankly, it should not be fought.
Employers do not have that degree of power over employees.
Most know that.
This guy was out the day they handed out common sense.
So now we're going to have it all spelled out in law because this fool peed in the pool.