Replies

"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.

"In this particular case, the employees were already working there, then the employer changed the policy."

Well, I sure wouldn't do it that way, because it's bad for morale. I would think that applying it to new hires would be a wiser choice from a business standpoint. However, I've never seen any law keeping a company from having stupid policies, only those that discriminate based on a very small set of criteria.

"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."

The Bill of Rights also doesn't include the right to employment. A socialist country might include such a right, but the US constitution does not provide such a right.

"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."

I agree for the most part. However, your actions outside of work can reflect on the company for which you work. There's a lot of things that fall into the realm of legal but socially unacceptable that can make it so that a company does not want their name associated with yours. I don't believe that smoking falls into this category. But I think it's an important point.

Smoking has an effect on the company you work for through the health benefits they provide as well as disability insurance and life insurance. The costs of those benefits is a substantial portion of what it costs a business to employ someone, and those costs are significantly higher for a smoker than a non-smoker.

If your actions away from work don't effect your employer, they should stay out of your business. If your actions outside of work to start to effect your employer, then it becomes their business.

"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."

What is reasonable and fair from the point of view of the employer and what if perceived as reasonable and fair by employees often differs significantly.

This employer apparently feels that it is fair to not have their company burdened by the higher expenses that result from people smoking. You apparently disagree, and feel that the employees right to do what they want outside of work outweighs the employer's right to choose employees based on the costs to the company to employ them.

Who's right? Personally, I think the government should stay out of it. Government intervention rarely makes such situations better.

"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."

With sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, racial discrimination, and such actions there's no basis in job performance or employment costs to justify the action.

With smoking, there is a cost to the employer involved.

Maybe the employer could reach an agreement with the employee to deduct the difference in costs for the benefits for a smoker from the employee's paycheck. That removes the biggest issue that I see.

I kind of like that idea personally because it requires people to assume the responsibility for the effects of their own actions. However, it's likely easier for the company to just have one policy, and they may be able to get better insurance rates by eliminating smokers from the plan entirely.

"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."

Sometimes, but usually it's just that the employee sees issues from a different point of view. Businessmen with capital take considerable risks in the hopes of earning money. Look at most any company and you'll find that they've made a number of missteps that have cost them considerable amounts of money, and those who invested the capital usually pay the highest price when things go badly.

They're trying to make money. They hire you because they are paying you with the intent that your actions will profit them. If you're not efficient, or your actions outside work cost them money, it's money out of their pockets.

If you're really good at what you do, they should pay you well because you make them money. If they don't pay you well, you should work somewhere else where someone realizes your value to them.

In my experience the vast majority of bad business decisions made by upper management are made because of foolishness or being poorly informed. Very few are actually made out of malice or a feeling of superiority.

It hasn't always seemed that way at the time, but I've been with the company long enough and heard stories of different situations from many different points of view, and learned that incompetence far outranks malice or even greed as the biggest reason for bad decisions.

I think in this case the employer doesn't realize how many good employees they are going to lose due to this policy and how it's being implemented. They'll lose not only the smokers they pushing out the door, but other employees that are unhappy with how their coworkers are being treated.

They should look for a way to pass on the costs of smoking onto the employees, and then stay out of those people's personal business.

If they want to ban smoking on company property, I think that they have the right to do so.