Posted on 02/06/2005 3:44:20 AM PST by MisterRepublican
In last year's remake of the 1970s classic science fiction file, "The Stepford Wives," a group of techno-weirdos set out to transform imperfect women into perfect wives. Of course, the plan fails because of... well, a lot of reasons.
But the point is, the world remains as full of weirdos today seeking to create the perfect person as when Pygmalion tried many centuries ago. Now, the "Stepford Search" has come to corporate America.
Weyco Inc., a Michigan company, has decided to fire any employee who smokes. Not just any employee who smokes on the job. Any employee who smokes anywhere, anytime, anyhow. Why? To help the employees make healthful life choices and become better persons; to help the employees "manage their health care."
How does the company ensure its employees remain truly and permanently "smoke free?" Mandatory "drug" tests. If traces of the "devil weed" tobacco are found, the hapless employee who thought he or she lived in a free country — one in which a citizen could practice such horrible habits as lighting up a cigarette or cigar in the "privacy" of his or her home — is summarily fired.
In the 1950s and 1960s, the decades of my misspent youth, we harbored the illusion such menaces as nuclear war or communist invasion were the real enemies of freedom. How wrong we were. The good folks running America just four or five decades later, including the Weyco Gestapo, know the real enemy of man is not the trivial nuclear holocaust, but smoking. And they will leave no freedom unturned in their zeal to root it out wherever it might still lurk.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Yep; and I see plenty of it right here on FR, sad to say.
As do I. Quite incredible to me, as I had once thought the majority of FReepers upheld ALL the Constitution, read, and thought critically....that seems to becoming less apparent.
No, that doesn't make sense.
Both are legal substances, and the family structure is not going to be destroyed by either.
I've always said, "whatever works", and I believe that, but this is way out there.
But who's call is that? Who is to say who is going to live until 90 and which ones only make it to age 60?
We can't look at each other and say "Oh! Sorry. You will be dead at age 62."
I believe the insurance company's are just picking on people's life styles in order to raise their rates.
Do we really want to ponder the possibilities?
So I can only employ Republicans?
So I can exclude ANYONE who does not have my identical religious belief?
DARE I say skin pigment? Gender? Marital status? With or without children?
How about I will give employment only to those who agree to sterilization?
If a business owner like Weyco has the right to prohibit his employee's from smoking, even on their off duty hours, why can't this same standard stand up to restaurants and bars? Why can't that business owner also have the right to allow a smoking section or not? Why is the state telling some business owner's what to do, while leaving others rest?
Double standard? When the state is in agreement it is ok. But if the state doesn't like what a private business owner is doing, they step in.
I don't blame them for trying. Look at life insurance. If tell them you smoke, you pay more for coverage.
What about alcohol in our society? It's a known fact that excessive drinking can lead to kidney failure, can raise the levels of some fats in the blood, can lead to high blood pressure, heart failure, and increased calorie intake (which can, in turn, lead to obesity and a higher risk of developing diabetes). Excessive drinking and binge drinking can lead to stroke.
Drinking too much alcohol can lead to alcoholism, which has other consequences, such as increased risk of accidents and suicide, beyond its known health consequences.
Alcoholics probably won't live into their 90's, given all the health risks, and health costs, associated with drinking.
Is drinking against the law? No. But alcoholism can be deadly, and not just to the person who drinks (all things considered, it's more likely that one who drives while drunk will hurt/kill people with their vehicles than one who drives and isn't impaired)....
So the next logical step will be these and other companies banning the consumption of alcohol, at any time, and mandatory alcohol testing.
Or, perhaps, tests to see if a potential employee has heritable traits for alcoholism, because, you never know....they may become an alcoholic in the future.
Well, "I" have "my" beliefs on that subject. :)
It was apparent to me when workplace drug testing was accepted that it was the camel's nose under the tent.
It was inevitable that it would creep.
When I worked for Michelin Tire Corporation in the 1970's, they had a policy about what kind of vehicles the salespeople could drive. No pickups, foreign, luxury or sports cars. They gave you a monthly stipend to help with car payments, and if you wanted to work for them, that was the policy.
On the smoking front, state law in Florida (unless they've changed it), is that no paid firefighter can use tobacco. The individual fire departments don't even have a choice. Quite a few fire departments in other states have this policy. Also, if you check the job postings in almost any professional field, many of them will state "non-tobacco users only."
Thanks!
Weyco's smoking employees need to show good faith by enrolling in smoking cessation programs before they are fired. Failure in these programs can lead to spiraling depression and even suicidal ideation and inability to work. Spread rumors that employees are on the verge of "going postal." Then they need to go on disability so Weyco can continue to pay their health insurance, social security, retirement and disability benefits. (Always appeal your requests for these benefits, almost everyone loses the first couple.) Don't neglect unemployment either, apply for it the day you're dismissed. Any money which Weyco will hope to save on insurance premiums will be more than offset by a few losses on disability and unemployment claims (they would be better off keeping these individuals working). Neck pain is almost impossible to disprove . . . burned out lightbulbs in stairwells or restrooms anywhere at Weyco? Poor lighting can cause bad falls. Establish that your efficiency at your job was high but dropped off since Weyco management began to persecute you. Document, document, document.
WOW! I love the way you think!!!!! Great coverage on this. You have opened my eyes! Excellent!
I even copied and pasted your words into email and sent it on.
That is a total barfer, and scary too.
"Why can't they grandfather the old workers into the new anti-smoking policy, which was not there when they first were hired?"
Exactly my thoughts when this whole thing came out. Obviously, the agenda is the most important thing...long time employees be damned.
The Washington Times is my number 1 MUST READ with my coffee on Sunday morning.......I thought Barr's piece was excellent.
Will have to wade through the thread when I get back a bit later.
"On the smoking front, state law in Florida (unless they've changed it), is that no paid firefighter can use tobacco. The individual fire departments don't even have a choice. Quite a few fire departments in other states have this policy. Also, if you check the job postings in almost any professional field, many of them will state "non-tobacco users only."
Richard, I'm an ex-paid firefighter from Florida (county-wide fire dept). There was no such rule when I was employed. In fact, I venture to say the vast majority of all firefighters I worked with, smoked cigarettes. I'm glad to say I did not!
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.