[Kretek]

What next, fire the genetically predisposed?

That's right - it's the God-given right to run one's business in whatever way the Petty Tyrant sees fit.

Unless the company raised wages to 168/40 times the before-revision rate, the company has no right to dictate or punish off-duty behavior. None. If the company wants to control behavior during off-duty time, they will have to make it on-duty time and compensate its employees.

[Stu Cohen]

Unless the company raised wages to 168/40 times the before-revision rate, the company has no right to dictate or punish off-duty behavior. None. If the company wants to control behavior during off-duty time, they will have to make it on-duty time and compensate its employees.

Wouldn't this apply to illegal, and legal prescription drug tests as well?

[Protagoras]

Unless the company raised wages to 168/40 times the before-revision rate, the company has no right to dictate or punish off-duty behavior. None. If the company wants to control behavior during off-duty time, they will have to make it on-duty time and compensate its employees.

Incorrect. Absent force, no one has to work there. And the company is under no obligation to pay more than it has agreed to.

[Becki]

That's right - it's the God-given right to run one's business in whatever way the Petty Tyrant sees fit.

Unless he owns a bar or a restaurant and wants to have a smoking section.

Becki

[Still Thinking]

No, even that wouldn't work. If everyone paid their staff 24/7 for producing the same amount of goods, the price of those goods would just adjust themselves due to supply and demand in the same ratio (people with more money can pay more, plus there is 168/40 more labor cost built in to the products for sale). So the workers would still get screwed and have the same buying power (and much higher income taxes) with a much larger number of dollars. It might work OK if only a few companies did it, but not for the entire economy.