Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

Posted on 02/06/2005 3:44:20 AM PST by MisterRepublican

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 241-252 next last
To: longtermmemmory

Yawn. Go back and read my posts.

I'm for keeping the government out of telling businesses who they can hire and fire. Period.


181 posted on 02/06/2005 10:17:33 AM PST by G.Love (Senate majority - use it or lose it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Johnny Crab

Well said, Mr. Crab.


182 posted on 02/06/2005 10:17:39 AM PST by Bahbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: sheik yerbouty

I changed my mind about Weyco. This is part of a much larger agenda than a business' requiring employees to adhere to certain policies.


183 posted on 02/06/2005 10:18:28 AM PST by cyborg (Department of Homelife Security threat level is GREEN.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: ETERNAL WARMING

The land of the fleas and the home of the sheep.


184 posted on 02/06/2005 10:18:44 AM PST by lodwick (Integrity has no need of rules. Albert Camus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: divulger

See post #81.


185 posted on 02/06/2005 10:19:48 AM PST by G.Love (Senate majority - use it or lose it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: cyborg

There are other treacherous forces at work..


186 posted on 02/06/2005 10:20:51 AM PST by sheik yerbouty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: divulger

Sorry. Make that #181.


187 posted on 02/06/2005 10:25:21 AM PST by G.Love (Senate majority - use it or lose it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
This is part of a much larger agenda than a business' requiring employees to adhere to certain policies.

I am surprised that no one here has posted that employers may one day require a DNA sample from new hires and not hire anyone with a genetic predisposition to cancer (or other things). The concept of health insurance is at the root of the problem. Initially insurance was supposed to cover so many that the few who caught serious illness would be covered by the vast number of insureds who were healthy. Now one company seeks to create a favorable statistical sub group and benefit from this. This could be the downfall of all health insurance, (and that may or may not be a bad thing depending on your view.)

It used to be that some got sick and some did not. The healthy owed nothing to the sick who either paid for their own care or died. We may be heading back to this ideal, because ultimately the wealthy can afford what the poor cannot.

As for this foolish company, their policy reflects the thinking of a small company which will not grow much more. For the reasons posted here, the company does not honor the freedom of their employees, and employees will leave when and if they can for better employers. The remaining people will be healthy, have cheaper health insurance, and not much enjoyment in life.

188 posted on 02/06/2005 10:32:16 AM PST by KC_for_Freedom (Sailing the highways of America, and loving it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: TAdams8591; sweetliberty

I agree with you; I think it would be absurd to outlaw the consumption of alcohol. However, it was at one time...and as sweetliberty has already mentioned, outlawing/forbidding one thing only leads to the "invention" of doing something else, perhaps more illegal and destructive. We know, for instance, bootleggers "evolved" because of Prohibition. I, in fact, know people who bootlegged for the Mafia....yes...the Mafia, during Prohibition. It was a lucrative trade for the Mafia to become involved in the illegal production/sale of alcohol.

And one would have to be quite naive to believe that nothing else more illegal occurred during this new Mafia business of illegal trade of manufacturing/selling of alcohol.


189 posted on 02/06/2005 10:35:04 AM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
You know when you tell someone they can't do something, it just makes the desire that much more greater

That is exactly right. Personally, I can't stand busybodies who think they sit on a throne and have a right to dictate to other people (people in glass houses and all). I feel for the Weyco employees as well, especially the older ones. The younger ones have grown up in the nanny-of-everything society. But those of us who are over 40......

190 posted on 02/06/2005 10:42:41 AM PST by Annie03
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: sheik yerbouty
The world would be a better place without relentless busybodies and anal retentive control freaks.

Amen to that....

191 posted on 02/06/2005 10:43:58 AM PST by Annie03
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Jaysun
Perhaps this will finally create a market for my nicotine suppositories idea.

Actually, I think that was Rush's idea. Ever heard the "commercial" on his show? Its called "Lucky Butts". LBMFT. Lucky Butts Means Fine Tobacco. LOL

192 posted on 02/06/2005 10:49:02 AM PST by beckysueb (God bless America and President Bush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Jaysun

"Shotgun sized"suppository?Ouch!Have u test marketed yet?


193 posted on 02/06/2005 10:51:28 AM PST by thombo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: OpusatFR
What would prevent a whole host of legislation under the guise of "health" that would regulate my life to prevent lost work days or incur medical expense?

I really think this company in question is really just against smoking and they can get by with it because of political correctness. They wouldn't even try to implement rules against all those other things. Its just smoking. They just hate it. Its like an obsession with some people and they know no one will care if they persecute their employees over smoking but there would be outrage over firing gays or obese people, etc. Its all about political correctness.

194 posted on 02/06/2005 10:59:00 AM PST by beckysueb (God bless America and President Bush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Siamese Princess
The ill effects of smoking rack up the bills, but so does obesity, drinking and homosexuality.

There's the key point that everybody is missing. They're not really trying to control costs or improve life through better "health choices," merely through the choices that match their personal (liberal) preferences. I'm normally a very free-market kinda guy and almost extremist in my belief that an employer has the right to make tough employee decisions since it's his money in play. I've been in business for myself for 25 years and understand the issues. But this is different. This is an insidious attempt to shove their POLITICAL beliefs down the throats of their employees. If they were concerned about "health," any moron knows homosexuality is what, ten times more deadly than tobacco, a hundred times, what?

I suspect nothing's gonna happen and it will proceed unfettered, but that's a huge mistake.

MM

195 posted on 02/06/2005 11:07:45 AM PST by MississippiMan (Americans should not be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13

ping


196 posted on 02/06/2005 11:08:24 AM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sweetliberty
That's incredible, Sweetliberty! I don't have that problem -- not yet anyway. Unfortunately, I'm not surprised that the company thinks that it has a right to hector you because it pays your premiums. He who pays the piper gets to call the tune. Of course, it doesn't really pay your premiums -- it just pay you less in order to provide you with health insurance.

Unfortunately, the rising cost of medicine is a huge problem in this country. To some degree, this is inevitable, with the rising percentage of aged and chronically and terminately ill people in the population. One way to deal with the problem is to return to the original system that only covered the big ticket items. That's the way it was until the 1970s. There is no reason why insurance should cover the most mundane medical visits and minor costs. Perhaps patients could pay more for their care. That would benefit me, who very rarely goes to the doctor, but may force people to be more careful with their own lives and not squander medical resources, as well. That's another problem -- the patients don't care about racking up big bills because someone else almost certainly picks up most, if not all, of the tab.

There are many issues regarding medical care -- a vast amount of money is spent on the chronically ill and dying. Is it a good idea to keep people alive, no matter what the prognosis is? As a society, can we afford to give people unlimited medical care? Wherever there is some sort of socialized medicine, medical care is rationed and even denied. People with treatable conditions are turned away because they are too old and others wait so long that they suffer and even die in the meantime. HMOs are the American equivalent of the government medical bureaucracy in countries with socialized medicine.

197 posted on 02/06/2005 11:09:20 AM PST by Siamese Princess
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Annie03
The younger ones have grown up in the nanny-of-everything society. But those of us who are over 40.

I agree. I just feel like I have been left behind by society sometimes.

198 posted on 02/06/2005 11:11:30 AM PST by beckysueb (God bless America and President Bush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: beckysueb
I just feel like I have been left behind by society sometimes.

You are not alone....I feel like a dinosaur..lol.

199 posted on 02/06/2005 11:15:39 AM PST by Annie03
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: BipolarBob

The solution is to start taxing health benefits as income which will end the incentive for a company to involve itself in providing insurance which is usually not the focus of the company.


200 posted on 02/06/2005 11:18:58 AM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 241-252 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson