Posted on 02/25/2005 6:28:40 AM PST by T.Smith
In an employment at will state you do not have to give cause at all.......nor does an employee need give a reason for quitting.
It's the total opposite in a "right-to-work" state.
Yes, it would have been kinder (some might say more upstanding) to grandfather the present smokers. But, in the end, I suppose he can do what he wants with his company. He certainly go a lot of publicity out of it!
LOL!!!! Of course I know that. I didn't know you the last time I did either of those 2 things..............(just kidding)
In principle, a privatly owned business would be able to fire any registered Democrates or other people with anti-business idiologies or political views.
My previous employer had a policy such as this. We would not hire anyone that was not a firm Republican. One secratary was able to sneek through the hiring process, but once we understood her political leanings, she was fired.
unless your reason for firing is not discriminatory or otherwise violates a worker's constitutional rights?
i mean even in an "at will" state you cannot fire someone for being black, can you?
Race is a federal thing that supersedes state law - but even in an at will state, most already piggyback the "race, sex, religion, etc........
I remember during the battle over this in Delaware 10 years or so ago - the number of employment ads in the paper that clearly stated "smokers need not apply" I still see them, and I also see apartments for rent that will only rent to non-smokers.
It is all the same principle.
hmm.. so you don't have to hire minorities or women if you don't feel like it, eh?
Yes,you are right.
I suppose the owner enjoys the publicity.
Companies are powerless to "ban" anything. You don't have to work there. If you agree not to have sex, don't do it. If you don't agree, leave.
if they don't like it they can quit, eh?
Yep.
how about banning employees from driving cars other than to and fro work since that is dangerous?
"Dangerous" is irrelevant. They can't ban people from driving. They can require it as a condition of employment. You don't agree? Get a job elsewhere.
they can always quit if they don;t like it.
Bingo, see? You keep repeating it, it must be sinking in.
or how about weekend camping trips? vacations to foreign lands?
Yes and yes. You can think of thousands and thousands of others I'm sure. I'll save you the trouble, anything they agree to is OK. Both have to agree, or either party may disengage from the arrangement. Get it? No force, no muss no fuss. You don't want to make the arrangement? Haul ass.
Government employs force in those instances to get votes from those groups.
In principle, as privatetly owned property, a business should be able to set any employment criteria that they desire. Government employment on the other hand, does and should have legal restrictions, since the government represents all citizens.
I fail to see any Constitutional justification that would authorize the employment of force against a privatly owned business to hire a specific individuals.
Is it moral? No.
Is it Constitutional? Yes.
Bingo! As it should be.
"What's next? Not hiring someone because they drink, eat junk food, don't exercise, etc."
That's already in effect. If you walk into a waiting room at a company and look at the candidates waiting to be interviewed for a position, the lead goes to the trim and the fit, every time. Some of us say, I have every right to do and be whatever I want with my body. Fine, but don't employers have a right to hire the person who projects more energy, confidence, self-control--and is, statistically, less likely to miss work because of illness, and more likely to be productive?
"The more these companies make stringent rules and regulations, more people will end up being unemployed." I will default to paraphrase what many people say on this forum all the time: If you don't like the rules of your company, you are free to find another company.
"What you do on your off time should not concern the employer as long as you perform your job!" See paragragh one. Here's an extreme example: a functional alchoholic can "perform" his job--but I'd rather have someone else performing it, thanks. Someone who's more productive, doesn't increase my liability, and is less likely to cause injury to himself or others.
Be honest: If you bid out a remodeling job in your home, are you more inclined to give the job the the trim, clear-eyed, articulate contractor...or the slovenly slob who projects an image that sets off your alarms?
No, I'm not an employer.
"How on earth will they penalize asthmatics who can lose work time due to attacks. All the steroid sprays, antihistamines, targeted meds like singulair, inhalers, flu shots, clean air in the world will not stop an attack. They happen. Just catch a cold.
What next, fire the genetically predisposed?"
Sure, why not. Just don't hire, or fire existing employees, who have any sort of pre-existing medical condition that might cost their medical insurer or result in a few more sick days.
This guy's within his rights, but that doesn't make him any less of a busybody fascist.
That's one of the benefits of being the "employer".
I agree, if you don't like the policy, do work for the employer.
Government employment on the other hand, does and should have legal restrictions, since the government represents all citizens.
I agree with you here as well, although it unfortunately is not the case in many states.
The State's Attorney office in Orange County, Florida springs to mind.........all employees were told they either had to quit smoking or lose their jobs and henceforth only non-smokers would be hired.
That I can not go along with as smokers are also taxpayer's footing the bills and in fact gaovernment employees work for the taxpayers, not the other way around.
Congratulations! Yours sounds very much like my father's decision to quit on 8/1/68. Same habit, one of the same reasons for quitting (the other being my little sis), same level of success. Thankfully, the 50 pounds he gained didn't stop him from living to the age of 80 (and still going strong).
Constitutionally, any privatly owned company can establish any employment policies that they desire. The employees of that same company can also join together and shut down the company.
Today, Unions have been corrupted and cause many more problems than they solve. However, the original concept of employee unions is still valid.
Constitutionally, that is wrong and must not be allowed to happen. I find it impossible to understand their legal justification.
I don't know how it is justified, but other localities have done it with police and firefighters as well.
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.