The Stepford Employees

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

[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.

[Uncle Vlad]

You're right. This is a slippery slope, brought on by anti-smoking hysteria. It absolutely won't end with smoking. I'm certainly sympathetic to a business owner running his or her business the way he or she sees fit. The other side of the anti-smoking Nazi hysteria is the smoking ban that local governments put on bars and restaurants. We're seeing businesses go under because of this restriction, too. Morally, Weyco management is just as wrong as the local governments that ban smoking and destroy businesses.

Ultimately, the free market needs to sort out all of this insanity. This kind of insanity at Weyco, therefore, needs to be put down decisively with a boycott and a strike by the employees. It has to stop now, or it will spread everywhere, and the workplace will soon become an even bigger Orwellian nightmare than it is now.

[SheLion]

I agree with some that a business owner should be able to run his own business, no matter how ridiculous are the rules he lays down.
On the other hand, no one should work for a company for twenty years and have the rules changed so that he is no longer eligible for his retirement benefits if he doesn't fit the company mold.

I also concur that an employer has the right to run his business in the way he sees fit.  But there is a fine line between work hours and off duty hours.  When does it stop?

If an employer wants to control his people, will we soon see a sleeping area set up so the employee's can't leave the premises now?   They will be under complete control of their employer, to make sure their pay check comes in. 

I would rather quit the job and go to work for MacDonald's then be under the thumb of one person.  I had a mother.  I don't need another one. 

[EVO X]

When you enlist in the Navy (or any other service) it's made clear that you are on the job 24/7/365

I know that, I was just pointing out that it does occur..

[SheLion]

I agree with some that a business owner should be able to run his own business, no matter how ridiculous are the rules he lays down.
On the other hand, no one should work for a company for twenty years and have the rules changed so that he is no longer eligible for his retirement benefits if he doesn't fit the company mold.

This employer should have grand fathered his new "rule."  A new hire would be required to be a non-smoker.  Is this just another ploy for this employer not to have to pay pensions of those who smoke and are getting ready to retire from his company?

It could happen.  Sad to say. 

[sweetliberty]

"You don't have the right to force a private entity to associate with you or anyone else."

Nor does a private entity's place of employment have a right to intrude on his private life. What he does on company time is the company's business. What he does on his own time is not.

[sweetliberty]

"The employees don't have to live under tyranny. They can work elsewhere."

And when the rapidly spreading tyranny becomes the norm, then what?

[SheLion]

Why can't they grandfather the old workers into the new anti-smoking policy, which was not there when they first were hired? It seems to me that a lot of older workers in their 50's could file discinminaton lawsuits and win big, if they are canned over a change in the policy such as this.

GMTA! I just read your post AFTER I posted basically the same thing. :)

Grand father. Exactly.

A person works for this company for a long time, is a smoker and is getting ready to retire. If he doesn't quit smoking, will he lose his pension?

This is how I read it.

[SheLion]

How many times is this thing going to be posted on FR?

First I have seen it.

[sweetliberty]

"What is they did not like the color of your skin? Or the fact you became handicapped after an accident, and they do not want to have handicapped people working for them? Do you think the company should have the right to fire these people?"

.

[EVO X]

Why stop there?

Some people have dangerous hobbies:

Mountain climbing

Skydiving

I don't see why employer health insurance should cover those activities unless they advocate it. There should be seperate insurance for that..

[Darksheare]

There's already regulations and codes in place that bar an employer from firing you simply due to your skin color or restrictions in abilities.
Hence "Equal Opportunity Employer" symbols and such.
If they fired someone based off of color or restrictions to crutches or such, then that would be cause for prosecution.

[SheLion]

The BIG LIE That Smoking is an Economic Burden To Society

[MissAmericanPie]

Same thing happened in Nazi Germany. When they came for the Pols everyone looked away, when they came for the retarded everyone looked away, when they came for the Jews everyone looked away, then they came for those that turned a blind eye and no one was left to look away.

[TexasCowboy]

Yes, and I know it's easy for me to sit here and say that I'd tell him to shove it where the sun don't shine, which is what I'd do, but I'll never be in that position in the first place.

It's not easy for a man or woman over fifty to find decent employment.
This guy is a first class a**hole!

[TexasCowboy]

The first thing I'd probably do, if I could get to him, is beat the holy sh*t out of him.
The three hots and a cot in jail ain't bad.

[SheLion]

It's not easy for a man or woman over fifty to find decent employment.
This guy is a first class a**hole!

He totally is! DaySide interviewed him last week, and honest to God, he looks like a dried up old prune. Someone who never knew a happy day in his entire life. Pity.

What are the three most important things today?

Employment, health care and Social Security.

So, the anti's have hit 25-30% of the employers with all three. Threatening them that if they do not stop smoking a legal commodity, they will be fired, laid off or find another job.

I wonder what this 'employer' would do if the drug tests he is doing on his people show the REALLY hard drugs?

What would he do about that? Out right fire that person?

[SheLion]

The three hots and a cot in jail ain't bad.

Be careful. A lot of jails across the US have gone smoke free as well. hehe!

[TexasCowboy]

My gosh! I didn't know that!

You mean after being in the drunk tank all night they won't even let you smoke??!
Well, one more place I'll have to stay out of.

[sweetliberty]

"Employers have been peering into their employees personal lives for decades now. Its called drug testing."

Yes, and while I know this is not a popular opinion here, I think that is just as wrong. What one does as a representative of the company or agency is one thing, but if a person wants to get high or whatever on his own time, that should be his choice. If what he is getting high on is illegal, then that becomes an issue between him and the law, not the employer. Employees are rented, not owned, unless, of course, one supports a return to slavery, which I suppose is where we will end up anyway, only instead of private slave owners, we'll have government owned and/or subsidized slaves.

[sweetliberty]

"We're seeing businesses go under because of this restriction, too."

I'm sure that some will think I am getting into tinfoil territory here, but I think this is part of the wider plan of the new totalitarianism. You have to break the backs of private businesses, particularly small businesses, which are more cost effective to bankrupt than to pay off. Totalitarianism cannot exist in an ownership society. Bankruptcy breeds dependency and the more of the population that is dependent, the more manageable the slaves workers become.