The Stepford Employees

The Washington Times ^ | Feb. 5, 2005 | Bob Barr

[SheLion]

You mean after being in the drunk tank all night they won't even let you smoke??!

Oh yes! Maine for one!

It's called "If you smoke, you better not go to jail." A crime deferment. Heh! (Is that the right word?)

[nicmarlo]

Well, I still think they shouldn't hire:

* women: the risks are much higher that they'll get breast cancer than men

* those with a family history of alzheimers..........

I mean, they should target all "undesirables." Isn't that a part of the goal: reduce ALL possible risks/costs associated with hiring an employee?

[SheLion]

THE ANTI-TOBACCO RECIPE FOR SUCCESS

1. Choose an industry
2. Regulate the industry.
3. Tax the industry.
4. Sue the industry.

When one source of money dries up, return to Step 1 and repeat.

[billybudd]

Huh? The company isn't intruding on his private life. He is free to smoke all he wants. And the company is free to fire him if they don't like him for it.

[Darksheare]

But if you can't fire someone for an unhealthy lifestyle choice called homosexuality, then why fire him for an unhealthy lifestyle CHOICE called smoking?

[SheLion]

Huh? The company isn't intruding on his private life. He is free to smoke all he wants. And the company is free to fire him if they don't like him for it.

Excuse me.....but this employer said no smoking at anytime.

He has a nicotine drug test he is pulling on his employee's. If nicotine shows up in their blood stream, they are in big trouble.

He demands they stop smoking or move on.

[nicmarlo]

They most certainly are; all employees cannot smoke at any time, at home, out at their friends, anywhere. The must submit to testing to see if they are in compliance with the "no-smoking policy."

[eno_]

This is why Weyco is singularly unfit to manage health benefits. They CLAIM to want to manage flexible spending accounts and other means to get us back to inexpensive indemnity insurance.

Clearly they want the nannyism to survive this transition.

Drive them out of business!

[sweetliberty]

"You mean after being in the drunk tank all night they won't even let you smoke??!"

I have a client who is in a rehab program, which by all accounts I've heard, is an excellent program with a fairly high rate of success. I have a theory that what accounts for most of the failures is their strict no tolerance policy for any substance, legal or illegal, including tobacco and caffeine, so not only do you have people who are suffering the effects of being without their drugs, but they're forced to give up cigarettes, coke and coffee as well. That is extreme, in my opinion. People have self-medicated ever since....well, ever since there have been people. If one substance is curtailed by force, something WILL take it's place, guaranteed, and the substitute may be far worse than the original.

[cyborg]

Something stinketh in FR?

[Thumper1960]

The ill effects of a myriad things drive up health costs. Few of which are controllable by the individual.

What is next? Genetic screening of potential employees? Genetic screening of their spouses? Their children? A ban on "risky" hobbies, such as skydiving, rock-climbing, motorcycling or skiing? Will the employer demand access to your pantry, to ensure you eat only healthy foods and don't drink alcohol?

From where I see it, these WEYCO employers are 21st century NAZI kinsmen, cousins to the worst of Communistic mind and body control. Who makes sure the bosses keep clean and pristine? Of course, the serfs can't. As with the megalomaniac dictators, do as you're told, or face the wrath of your masters.

[SheLion]

From where I see it, these WEYCO employers are 21st century NAZI kinsmen, cousins to the worst of Communistic mind and body control. Who makes sure the bosses keep clean and pristine? Of course, the serfs can't. As with the megalomaniac dictators, do as you're told, or face the wrath of your masters.

Where does it stop?

[nicmarlo]

If one substance is curtailed by force, something WILL take it's place, guaranteed, and the substitute may be far worse than the original.

We cannot legislate innate morality or make people WANT to stop doing whatever society/culture deems wrong....that's truly the only reason why there are laws: to give power/tools to law enforcement and the courts, so that those who choose not to do what is morally right/benefitting society as a whole (i.e., driving while under the influence (alcohol/drugs), murder, road rage, stalking, stealing, bribing, lying, kidnapping, raping), can be stopped, involuntarily, and punished.

If people were like the stepfords, we wouldn't need any laws because everybody would always make high moral choices and live by high moral standards...always putting others before themselves.

Dictating how one "should" live their daily life within the confines of the law, whose life is otherwise lived within the parameters of acceptable morals (a good citizen, a good worker, a good parent) is more than ridiculous, it's instrusive and a violation of their Constitutionals rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of his or her happiness.

[SheLion]

it's instrusive and a violation of their Constitutionals rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of his or her happiness.

Well said. Thanks for reminding us.

I wondered why this nut was on DaySide WITH his attorney! What does THAT tell you?

[Thumper1960]

It stops with running these sorts of people out of business. Bankrupt them. Turn them into paupers and ensure they never run another business where they can attempt to exercise their twisted control fetish on a free people.

[TAdams8591]

Well, done Bob! How comforting to know you're on my side once again!

[nicmarlo]

I'm just baffled and amazed at how thoroughly the liberal agenda has actually poisoned the minds of so many "conservatives," and it isn't only relegated to the smoking agenda.....there are many other lefty agendas where the "conservatives" have drank the Kool-Aid.

[B-Chan]

Today: smoking. Tomorrow?

---

SCUMCO News Release

Background on SCUMCO INC's Religion-Free Policy
January 25, 200X

What: SCUMCO, Inc., established a policy promoting rational lifestyles through its lifestyles Challenge Program about five years ago. The goal of this program is to encourage employees to become psychologically healthy, and to increase their ability to accomplish more both personally and professionally.

When: The religion-free policy has been an ongoing program — and part of the Lifestyle Challenge Program at SCUMCO, Inc. — since fall 200X. We have assisted our employees through a series of communication and support activities, including: employee meetings introducing the program; history of religion classes, medication, and appointments with rational thinkers. The policy has been implemented in gradual stages to encourage staff members who hold irrational religious beliefs to become healthier and remain SCUMCO, Inc., employees.

Why: SCUMCO, Inc., is in business to help other companies improve employee health and save money through innovative benefit plans. The health plans we create offer hundreds of options—and our approach to religious belief may not be for everybody—but it's natural for us to take a leadership position on this issue. We encourage every employer to take a hard look at managing health costs related to Christianity and other religious belief.

There is no longer any question about the devastating effects of religion use on our society, or why it must be eliminated. Religion has been the source of more mass murder, torture, and war than any force in history...

---

Heute der Rauchen, morgens die Glauben.

[divulger]

But I believe businesses should be able to hire and fire whomever they please for whatever reasons they want.

So... what I'm hearing you say is, any company that wishes, in your mind, should be able to require all it's female employees to perform Lewinskis on all male employees at least 3 times a week?

Common... you can't be serious! "Whatever reasons they want"?

[TAdams8591]

Many people are living far into their 80's & 90's today. And the drugs and healthcare to keep them with us are frightfully costly (not that I would advocate anything else).

No matter who you are, unless you somehow remain healthy up to the moment of your death, you will cost health insurers money.