"A company may do that with employees and to a lesser extent customers. The employee isn't forced into how to act on or off the job. They chose to work for the company according to the agreement between them and the company."
-- This wasn't a policy when the employees first started working for the company. It was added on at a later date.
"The company isn't invading the privacy of the employee while the employee is on their free time. If they do the employee can take it to court."
-- They are invading their privacy....doing testing to see if you smoke (even when you are not at the company). Don't have a problem with them enforcing a "no smoking" policy at work, but do have a problem with them telling you that you can't smoke at home or on your off time.
"An agreement between a company and employee may include a provision where the employer is allowed access to the employee's home. I don't know of any existing company-employee agreement like that but it's possible for both parties to structure such an agreement."
-- When the agreement is made by both sides I agree it should be honored, but this agreement was NOT agreed to by the employees.
"My guess is: sacrifice free-association rights for the greater good of the group. A collectivist fallacy foisted on people Status quo, political agenda imposed by government-controlled public-school indoctrination and facilitated by mainstream media."
-- You have your point of view and I have mine. I believe that when you start taking rights away (what you do on your own "free time") then you are stepping close to a police state.
This wasn't a policy when the employees first started working for the company. It was added on at a later date.
Businesses do change their policies. It happens. Sometimes employees quit for any reason or no reason. Sometimes employers fire people for any reason or no reason. Obviously employees weren't influential enough to convince the company not to implement the policy change.
They are invading their privacy....doing testing to see if you smoke (even when you are not at the company).
It's not an invasion of privacy because each employee could chose to not accept the new policy change and leave the business. For persons that chose to remain an employee they chose to take the test -- they chose to accept the changed policy employer-employee agreement.
Are you implying that the employee is being held against their will, that they are not free to leave the business for any reason or no reason? The business doesn't owe any person a job nor does any person have the power to force the company to retain them as an employee.
Don't have a problem with them enforcing a "no smoking" policy at work, but do have a problem with them telling you that you can't smoke at home or on your off time.
I realize exactly what you just said is your problem. It is your problem. If you don't like it you'd be free to leave the business. You'd exercise your right to free association.. The freedom to not associate.
When the agreement is made by both sides I agree it should be honored, but this agreement was NOT agreed to by the employees.
Business make policy changes that change employer-employee agreements. In every company policy documentation I've read it states that the business has the right to change the policy. No company prohibits itself from making policy changes.
You have your point of view and I have mine. I believe that when you start taking rights away (what you do on your own "free time") then you are stepping close to a police state.
Police State is a function of government overreach. Police State governments do not allow citizens to exercise individual rights such as free-association. Do you understand the difference between private business and government? Your expressed view moves toward a police state whereas upholding the right of free-association moves away from a police state.
I notice that you ignored the below repost.
Perhaps a company decides to employee according to age, gender, religion or qualification. It's their business. They can hire and fire people as they chose.
You too have the same right. Perhaps you decide who to let into your home according to age, gender, religion or qualification. Perhaps you chose to not associate with people outside your home according to their age, gender, religion or qualification -- your choice whom you chose not to associate with.
You've probably changed your policy of who or who not to associate with or allow in your home.
You want that obvious liberty to act according to what you decide is best for you, right? You may not like it but other people and businesses have that same right you have..
Why wouldn't you like other people or business to have that same free-association right that you have?